Advertisement

An algebraic approach for modelling organisation, roles and contexts in MAS

  • Andrea OmiciniEmail author
  • Alessandro Ricci
  • Mirko Viroli
Article

Abstract

Governing the ever growing complexity of artificial systems on the one hand requires a number of expressive abstractions and different levels of interpretation, on the other hand suggests the adoption of formal / mathematical tools to (at least partially) model and predict the system behaviour. By adopting agent-oriented abstractions as the starting point, we argue that organisation, coordination and security all insist on the same conceptual space – that is, static / dynamic relations / interactions among agents –, which also represents one of the main sources of complexity for MAS, and for artificial systems in general, as well.

The notion of ACC (agent coordination context) is used in this paper as the unifying core abstraction of a framework that encompasses all such issues, promoting the integration of organisation, coordination, and security. Such a framework, called RBAC-MAS, is expressed through a process algebraic model which integrates the classic organisational issues of role-based models (like RBAC) and the more recent works on interaction and coordination in MAS.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Recent Work System Behaviour Artificial System Mathematical Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn, G., Sandhu, R., Kang, M., Park, J.: Injecting RBAC to secure a web-based workflow system. In: 5th ACM Workshop on Role-based Access Control, pp. 1–10, Berlin, Germany, ACM Press (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergstra, J. A., Klop, J. W.: Algebra of communicating processes with abstraction. Theor. Comput. Sci. 37(1), 77–121 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L. W.N. Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In: 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’04). pp. 255–266, Whistler, CA, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Botha, R. A., Eloff, J. H. P.: Separation of duties for access control enforcement in workflow environments. IBM Syst. J. 40(3), 666–682 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabri, G., Ferrari, L., Leonardi, L.: The RoleX environment for multi-agent cooperation. In: Klusch, M., Ossowski, S., Kashyap, V., Unland, R. (eds.) Cooperative Information Agents VIII, vol. 3191 of LNCS, 8th International Workshop (CIA 2004), Erfurt, Germany, September 27–29, 2004. pp. 257–270. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004) Proceedings.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cremonini, M., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F.: Multi-agent systems on the Internet: Extending the scope of coordination towards security and topology. In: Garijo, F. J., Boman, M. (eds), Multi-Agent Systems Engineering, vol. 1647 of LNAI, 9th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW’99), Valencia, Spain, 30 June – 2 July 1999. pp. 77–88. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999) Proceedings.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drouineaud, M., Torrini, M. B. P., Sohr, K.: A first step towards formal verification of security policy properties for rbac. In: 4th International Conference on Quality Software (QSICÆ04). IEEE Press, sep 2004Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dulay, N., Damianou, N., Lupu, E., Sloman, M.: A policy language for the management of distributed agents. In: Wooldridge, M., Weiss, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) Agent-oriented software engineering II, vol. 2222 of LNCS, pp. 84–100. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS’98). IEEE Press (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferraiolo, D., Kuhn, R.: Role-Based Access Control. In: 15th NIST–NSA National Computer Security Conference, pp. 554–563, Baltimore, MD, USA, 13–16 October 1992Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferraiolo, D. F., Sandhu, R., Gavrila, S., Richard Kuhn, D., Chandramouli, R.: Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control. ACM Trans. on Infor. and Syst. Security (TISSEC), 4(3), 224–274 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FIPA. FIPA communicative act library specification. http://www.fipa.org, 2000. Doc. XC00037H.
  13. 13.
    Gelernter, D.: Generative communication in Linda. ACM Trans. Programming Languages and Syst. 7(1), 80–112 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang, M. H., Park, J. S., Froscher, J. N.: Access control mechanisms for inter-organizational workflow. In: 6th ACM symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pp. 66–74. ACM Press (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kendall, E. A.: Role modelling for agent systems analysis, design and implementation. IEEE Concurrency, 8(2), 34–41 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khayat, A. E., Abdallah, E. J.AND: A formal model for flat role-based access control. In: ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications. IEEE Press (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language. In: Huhns, M. N. Singh, Munindar P. (ed.) Readings in Agents, pp. 235–242. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milner, R.: Elements of interaction: Turing Award lecture. Commun. ACM, 36(1), 78–89 (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minsky, N. H., Ungureanu, V.: Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems. ACM Trans. Software Eng. and Meth. (TOSEM), 9(3), 273–305 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noriega, P., Sierra, C.: Electronic institutions: Future trends and challenges. In: Klusch, M., Ossowski, S., Shehory, O. (eds.) Cooperative Information Agents VI, vol. 2446 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Odell, J., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Brueckner, S., Sauter, J.: Temporal aspects of dynamic role assignment. In: Giorgini, P., Müller, J. P., Odell, J. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering IV, volume 2935 of LNCS, 4th International Workshop (AOSE 2003) Melbourne, Australia, July 15, 2003. Revised Papers. pp. 201–213. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Omicini, A.: Towards a notion of agent coordination context. In: Marinescu, D., Lee, C. (eds.) Process Coordination and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 187–200. CRC Press (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Omicini, A., Ossowski, S.: Objective versus subjective coordination in the engineering of agent systems. In: Klusch, M., Bergamaschi, S., Edwards, P., Petta, P. (eds.) Intelligent Information Agents: An AgentLink Perspective, vol. 2586 of LNAI: State-of-the-Art Survey, pp. 179–202. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A.: Reasoning about organisation: Shaping the infrastructure. AI*IA Notizie, XVI 2, 7–16 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A.: MAS organisation within a coordination infrastructure: Experiments in TuCSoN. In: Omicini, A., Petta, P., Pitt, J. (eds.) Engineering Societies in the Agents World IV, vol. 3071 of LNAI, 4th International Workshop (ESAW 2003), London, UK, 29–31 October 2003. Revised Selected and Invited Papers. pp. 200–217. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M.: Formal specification and enactment of security policies through Agent Coordination Contexts. Electronic Notes in Theor. Comput. Sci. 85(3), August 2003. 1st International Workshop ‘‘Security Issues in Coordination Models, Languages and Systems’’ (SecCo 2003), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 28–29 June 2003. Proceedings.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M.: RBAC for organisation and security in an agent coordination infrastructure. In: Focardi, R., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) 2nd International Workshop on Security Issues in Coordination Models, Languages and Systems (SecCo’04), pp. 43–62, CONCUR 2004, London, UK, 30 August 2004. Proceedings.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M., Castelfranchi, C., Tummolini, L.: Coordination artifacts: Environment-based coordination for intelligent agents. In: Jennings, N. R., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, L., Tambe, M. (eds.) 3rd international Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), vol. 1, pp. 286–293, New York, USA, 19–23 July 2004. ACM.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M., Cioffi, M., Rimassa, G.: Multi-agent infrastructures for objective and subjective coordination. Appl Artif. Intell. 18(9/10), 815–831, (2004). Special Issue: Best papers from EUMAS 2003: The 1st European Workshop on Multi-agent Systems.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F.: Coordination for Internet application development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3), 251–269 (1999). Special Issue: Coordination Mechanisms for Web Agents.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F., Klusch, M., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.): Coordination of Internet Agents: Models, Technologies, and Applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ricci, A., Omicini, A., Denti, E.: Activity Theory as a framework for MAS coordination. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Engineering Societies in the Agents World III, vol. 2577 of LNCS, 3rd International Workshop (ESAW 2002), Madrid, Spain, 16–17 September 2002. Revised Papers. pp. 96–110. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sandhu, R., Coyne, E. J., Feinstein, H. L., Youman, C. E.: Role-based control models. IEEE Comput. 29(2), 38–47 (1996)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith, R. G.: The Contract Net Protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans. Comput. 29, 1104–1113 (1980)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wegner, P.: Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Commun. ACM, 40(5), 80–91 (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weigand, H., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J., Dignum, F.: Specification by refinement and agreement: designing agent interaction using landmarks and contracts. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Engineering Societies in the Agents World III, vol. 2577 of LNCS, pp. 1–11. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N. R., Wooldridge, M. J.: Organisational rules as an abstraction for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. Int J Software Eng Knowl. Eng, 11(3), 303–328 (2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang, Y., You, J.: An RBAC based policy enforcement coordination model in Internet environment. In: Engineering and Deployment of Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 2480 of LNCS, 1st International Conference (EDCIS 2002), Beijing, China, September 17–20, 2002. Proceedings, pp. 466–477. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Omicini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alessandro Ricci
    • 1
  • Mirko Viroli
    • 1
  1. 1.DEIS, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informatica e Sistemistica, Alma Mater StudiorumUniversità di BolognaCesenaItaly

Personalised recommendations