Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 107–128 | Cite as

Electronic institutions for B2B: dynamic normative environments

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The regulation of the activity of multiple autonomous entities represented in a multi-agent system, in environments with no central design (and thus with no cooperative assumption), is gaining much attention in the research community. Approaches to this concern include the use of norms in so-called normative multi-agent systems and the development of electronic institution frameworks. In this paper we describe our approach towards the development of an electronic institution providing an enforceable normative environment. Within this environment, institutional services are provided that assist agents in forming cooperative structures whose commitments are made explicit through contracts. Our normative framework borrows some concepts from contract law theory. Contracts are formalized using norms which are used by the institution while monitoring agents’ activities, thus making our normative environment dynamic. We regard the electronic institution as a means to facilitate both the creation and the enforcement of contracts between agents. A model of “institutional reality” is presented that allows for monitoring the fulfillment of norms. The paper also distinguishes our approach from other developments of the electronic institution concept. We address the application of our proposal in the B2B field, namely regarding the formation of Virtual Organizations.

Keywords

Electronic institution Multi-agent system Norm Contract 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The work reported in this paper is supported by the FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) Project POSC/EIA/57672/2004. Henrique Lopes Cardoso enjoys the FCT grant SFRH/BD/29773/2006.

References

  1. Arcos JL, Esteva M, Noriega P, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA, Sierra C (2005) Environment engineering for multiagent systems. Eng Appl Artif Intel 18(2):191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artikis A, Pitt J, Sergot M (2002) Animated specifications of computational societies. In: Proceedings 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’02), Bologna, July 2002, pages 1053–1062. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Boella G, van der Torre L (2004) Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In: Dubois D, Welty C, Williams M-A (eds) Proc. 9th Int. Conf. principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Canada, Whistler, pp 255–266Google Scholar
  4. Boella G, van der Torre L, Verhagen H (2005) Introduction to normative multiagent systems in 1st Int. Symposium on Normative Multiagent Systems. England, HatfieldGoogle Scholar
  5. Castelfranchi C (2000) Engineering social order. In: Omicini A, Tolksdorf R, Zambonelli F (eds) Engineering societies in the agents world. Springer, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  6. Castelfranchi C, Dignum F, Jonker C, Treur J (2000). Deliberative normative agents: principles and architectures. In: Jennings N, Lesperance Y (eds) Intelligent agents VI: agent theories, architectures, and languages. Springer, pp 364–378Google Scholar
  7. Colombetti M, Verdicchio M (2002) An analysis of agent speech acts as institutional actions. In: Proc. 1st Int. Joint Conf. on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 1157–1164Google Scholar
  8. Conte R, Falcone R, Sartor G (1999) Introduction: agents and norms: how to fill the gap? Artif Intel Law 7(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craswell R (2000) Contract law: general theories. In: Bouckaert B, De Geest G (eds) Encyclopedia of law and economics, vol III: the regulation of contracts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  10. Daskalopulu A, Maibaum T (2001) Towards Electronic Contract Performance. Legal Information Systems Applications, 12th International Conference and Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. IEEE Computer Society, pp 771–777Google Scholar
  11. Dignum V, Dignum F (2002) Towards an agent-based infrastructure to support virtual organizations. In: Camarinha-Matos LM (ed) Collaborative business ecosystems and virtual enterprises. Kluwer, pp 363–370Google Scholar
  12. Dignum V, Meyer J-J, Dignum F, Weigand H (2003) Formal specification of interaction in agent societies. In: Hinchey M, Rash J, Truszkowski W, Rouff C, Gordon-Spears D (eds) Formal approaches to agent-based systems. Springer, pp 37–52Google Scholar
  13. Esteva M, Padget J, Sierra C (2002) Formalizing a language for institutions and norms. In: Meyer J-J, Tambe M (eds) Intelligent agents VIII. Springer, pp 348–366Google Scholar
  14. Esteva M, Rosell B, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA, Arcos JL (2004) AMELI: an agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems: vol 1. IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp 236–243Google Scholar
  15. FIPA (2002a) FIPA-ACL Message Structure Specification, http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00061/Google Scholar
  16. FIPA (2002b) FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification, http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/Google Scholar
  17. FIPA (2002c). FIPA Agent Message Transport Service Specification, http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00067/Google Scholar
  18. Fornara N, Viganò F, Colombetti M (2005) Agent communication and institutional reality. In: van Eijk RM, Huget M-P, Dignum F (eds) Agent communication: international workshop on agent communication, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3396. Springer, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  19. Friedman-Hill E (2003) Jess in action. Manning Publications CoGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Camino A, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2005) Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In: Proc. 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 667–673Google Scholar
  21. Jones A, Carmo J (2001) Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay D (ed) Handbook of philosophical logic. Kluwer, pp 203–279Google Scholar
  22. Jones A, Sergot M (1996) A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic J IGPL 4(3):427–443MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Kollingbaum MJ, Norman TJ (2002) Supervised interaction—creating a web of trust for contracting agents in electronic environments. In: Proc. 1st Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 272–279Google Scholar
  24. López y López F, Luck M (2003) Modelling norms for autonomous agents. In: Chavez E, Favela J, Mejia M, Oliart A (eds) Proc. 4th Mexican Int. Conf. on Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society, pp 238–245Google Scholar
  25. Lopes Cardoso H, Malucelli A, Rocha AP, Oliveira E (2005) Institutional services for dynamic virtual organizations. In: Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H, Ortiz A (eds) Collaborative networks and their breeding environments—6th IFIP working conference on virtual enterprises (PRO-VE’05). Springer, pp 521–528Google Scholar
  26. Lopes Cardoso H, Oliveira E (2005a) Assisting and regulating virtual enterprise interoperability through contracts. In: Berre A, Elms K, Fischer K, Mueller JP (eds) Proc. Agent-based Technologies and applications for enterprise interOPerability. The Netherlands, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. Lopes Cardoso H, Oliveira E (2005b) Virtual enterprise normative framework within electronic institutions. In: Gleizes M-P, Omicini A, Zambonelli F (eds) Engineering societies in the agents World V. Springer, pp 14–32Google Scholar
  28. Malucelli A, Palzer D, Oliveira E (2005) Combining ontologies and agents to help in solving the heterogeneity problem. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on data engineering issues in e-commerce (DEEC2005). IEEE Computer Society, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 26–35Google Scholar
  29. Oliveira E, Rocha AP (2000) Agents advanced features for negotiation in electronic commerce and virtual organisations formation process. In: Dignum F, Sierra C (eds) Agent mediated electronic commerce: the european agentlink perspective. Springer, pp 78–97Google Scholar
  30. Pacheco O, Carmo J (2003) A role based model for the normative specification of organized collective agency and agents interaction. J Autonomous Agents Multi-Agent Syst 6(2):145–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2001) On the design and construction of Agent-mediated Electronic Institutions, Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  32. Sallé M (2002) Electronic contract framework for contractual agents. In: Cohen R, Spencer B (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence: 15th conference of the Canadian society for computational studies of intelligence. Springer, pp 349–353Google Scholar
  33. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Searle JR (1995) The construction of social reality. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Vázquez-Salceda J, Aldewereld H, Dignum F (2004) Implementing norms in multiagent systems. In: Lindemann G, enzinger J, Timm IJ, Unland R (eds) Multiagent system technologies. Springer, pp 313–327Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIACC – NIAD&R, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations