Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 307–360 | Cite as

Organizing Multiagent Systems

  • Javier Vázquez-SalcedaEmail author
  • Virginia Dignum
  • Frank Dignum


Despite all the research done in the last years on the development of methodologies for designing MAS, there is no methodology suitable for the specification and design of MAS in complex domains where both the agent view and the organizational view can be modeled. Current multiagent approaches either take a centralist, static approach to organizational design or take an emergent view in which agent interactions are not pre-determined, thus making it impossible to make any predictions on the behavior of the whole systems. Most of them also lack a model of the norms in the environment that should rule the (emergent) behavior of the agent society as a whole and/or the actions of individuals. In this paper, we propose a framework for modeling agent organizations, Organizational Model for Normative Institutions (OMNI), that allows the balance of global organizational requirements with the autonomy of individual agents. It specifies global goals of the system independently from those of the specific agents that populate the system. Both the norms that regulate interaction between agents, as well as the contextual meaning of those interactions are important aspects when specifying the organizational structure.

Key words

multiagent systems normative agents agent modelling framework social structures eInstitutions eOrganizations open systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Bresciani, P. Giorgini, F. Giunchiglia, J. Mylopoulos, and A. Perini, “TROPOS: An agent-oriented software development methodology,” Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, to appear.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Castelfranchi,“Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations”, in V. Lesser, (ed.), Proceedings of the first International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS’95), MIT Press, pp. 41–48, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Castelfranchi, F. Dignum, C. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Deliberative Normative Agents: Principles and architecture,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-99).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J. 2002“Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the TROPOS project”Information Systems27365389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Dastani, V. Dignum, and F. Dignum, “Role assignment in open agent societies,” in Proceedings of the AAMAS’03, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dennet, D. 1987The Intentional StanceMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, F. 1999“Autonomous Agents with Norms ”AI and Law76979Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. Dignum, “A Model for Organizational Interaction: based on Agents, founded in Logic,” SIKS Dissertation Series 2004–1, PhD Thesis, SIKS, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. Dignum and F. Dignum, “Modeling agent societies: Coordination frameworks and institutions,” in P. Brazdil and A. Jorge (eds.), Progress in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 2258, Springer-Verlag, pp. 191–204, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Dignum, J.-J. Meyer, F. Dignum, and H. Weigand, “Formal specification of interaction in agent societies,” in Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems (FAABS’02).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Dignum, J.-J. Ch. Meyer, H. Wiegand, and F. Dignum. “An organisational-oriented model for agent societies,” in G. Lindemann, D. Moldt, M. Paolucci, and B. Yu (eds.), Proceedings of the RASTA Workshop at AAMAS’02, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Dignum and H. Weigand, “Towards an organization-oriented design methodology for agent societies,” in V. Plekhanova (eds.), Intelligent Agent Software Engineering, Idea Group Publishing, pp. 191–212, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Esteva, J. Padget, and C. Sierra, “Formalizing a language for institutions and norms,” in J.-J. Ch. Meyer and M. Tambe (eds.), Intelligent Agents VIII, Vol. 2333 of LNAI, Springer-Verlag, pp. 348–366, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Grossi and F. Dignum, “From Abstract to Concrete Norms in Agent Institutions,” in Workshop on Formal Approaches to Agent-based Systems, FAABS III, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Howden, R. Rnnquist, A. Hodgson, and A. Lucas, “Jack-summary of an agent infrastructure,” in fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huhns, M., Abdulla, M. 1999“Benevolent agents ”IEEE Internet Computing39698March–AprilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Kalenka, Modelling social interaction attitudes in multi-agent systems, PhD Thesis, Department of Electronic Engineering, University of London, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Likert, R. 1961New Patterns of ManagementMcGraw-Hill Book CompanyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer, J.-J.Ch. 1988“A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic ”Notre Dame J. of Formal Logic29109136Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.-J. Ch. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley and Sons, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Miceli and C. Castelfranchi, “The role of evaluation in cognition and social interaction,” in Dautenhahn K. (ed.), Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology, John Benjamins, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miceli, M., Cesta, A., Rizzo, P. 1996“Distributed artificial intelligence from a sociocognitive standpoint: Looking at reasons for interaction ”Artificial Intelligence and Society9287320Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Noriega, Agent-Mediated Auctions: The Fishmarket Metaphor. Number 8 in IIIA Monograph Series. Institut d’Investigació en Intel.ligència Artificial (IIIA), 1997. PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Omicini, “Soda: Societies and infrastructures in the analysis and design of agent-based systems,” in P. Ciancarini and M. Wooldridge (eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, vol. 1957 of LNAI, Springer Verlag, pp. 185–193, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Organización Nacional de Transplantes. Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. V. D. Parunak and J. Odell, “Representing social structures in uml,” in M. Wooldridge, G. Weiss, and P. Ciancarini (eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering II, LNCS 2222, Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Powell, W. 1990“Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organisation ”Research in Organisational Behavior12295336Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. A. Rodriguez, “On the design and construction of agent-mediated electronic institutions,” PhD Thesis, Institut d’Investigació en Intel.ligència Artificial (IIIA), 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Serrano and S. Ossowski, “An approach to agent communication based on organizational roles,” in Cooperative Information Agents VI, LNAI.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. S. Sichman and R. Conte, “On personal and role mental attitudes: A preliminary dependency-based analysis,” in F. Oliveira (ed.), Advances in AI: Proceedings of the 14th Brazilian Simposium on AI, LNAI 1515, Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Singh, “Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles,” IEEE Computer, pp. 40–47, 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    I. Smith, P. Cohen, J. Bradshaw, M. Greaves, and H. Holmback, “Designing conversation policies using joint intention theory,” in Proceedings of the ICMAS-98, IEEE Press, pp. 269–276, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. van Diggelen, R. J. Beun, F. Dignum, R. M. van Eijk, and J.-J. Meyer, “Optimal communication vocubularies in the presence of heterogeneous ontologies,” Technical Report UU-CS-2004-003, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, 2004.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W. Vasconcelos, J. Sabater, C. Sierra, and J. Querol, “Skeleton-based agent development for electronic institutions,” in Proceedings of the AAMAS’02, 2003.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Vázquez-Salceda, U. Cortés, and J. Padget, “Integrating the organ and tissue allocation processes through an agent-mediated electronic institution,” LNAI-2504, pp. 309–321, 2002.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Vázquez-Salceda and F. Dignum, “Modelling electronic organizations,” in V. Marik, J. Muller, and M. Pechoucek (eds.), Multi-Agent Systems and Applications III, LNAI 2691, Springer-Verlag, pp. 584–593, 2003.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    G. H. von Wright, “On the logic of norms and actions,” New Studies in Deontic Logic, pp. 3–35, 1981.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Williamson, O. 1975Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust ImplicationsFree PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D. 2000“The Gaia Methodology for Agent- Oriented Analysis and Design,”Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems3285312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    F. Zambonelli, “Abstractions and infrastructures for the design and development of mobile agent organizations,” in M. Wooldridge, G. Weiss, and P. Ciancarini (eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering II, LNCS 2222, Springer-Verlag, pp. 245–262, 2002.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    F. Zambonelli, N. Jennings, and M. Wooldridge, “Organisational abstractions for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems,” in P. Ciancarini and M. Wooldridge (eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, LNCS 1957, Springer-Verlag, pp. 98–114, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Vázquez-Salceda
    • 1
    Email author
  • Virginia Dignum
    • 1
  • Frank Dignum
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtretchThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations