Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Convention-based Approach to Agent Communication Languages

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article aims to provide foundations for a new approach to Agent Communication Languages (ACLs). First, we present the theory of signalling acts. In contrast to current approaches to communication, this account is neither intention-based nor commitment-based, but convention-based. Next, we explore ways of embedding that theory within an account of conversation. We move here from an account of the basic types of communicative act (the statics of communication) to an account of their role in sequences of exchanges in communicative interaction (the dynamics of communication). Finally, we apply the framework to the analysis of conversational protocols such as the English auction protocol. We propose to give a compact expression of conversation protocols by means of a formula of the object-language. We also use this kind of representation to provide the basis for a procedure for keeping a record of the conventional effects achieved in a conversation. A corresponding axiomatic presentation is given, and shown to be sound and complete with respect to our proposed semantics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Artikis, A., J. Pitt and M. Sergot (2002). “Animated Specifications of Computational Societies,” In: Castelfranchi C. and Johnson L. (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1053–1062

  • Artikis, A., M. Sergot and J. Pitt (2003). “Specifying Electronic Societies with the Causal Calculator,” In: F. Giunchiglia, J. Odell and G. Weiss (eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering III (AOSE), Springer

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Bennett, J. (1976). Linguistic Behaviour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • Blackburn P., de Rijke M., de Venema Y. (2001). Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom R. B. (1983). Asserting. Nous 17:637–650

    Google Scholar 

  • R. B. Brandom (1994). Making it Explicit – Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press, London, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson (1987). Politeness – Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • Carmo, J. and A. J. I. Jones (2002). “Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-duties,” In: D. Gabbay and F.␣Guenthner (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 8, 2nd edn. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 265–343

  • Chavez, A. and P. Maes (1996). “Kasbah: An Agent Marketplace for Buying and Selling Goods,” In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM-96), London, UK, pp. 76–90

  • B. F. Chellas (1980). Modal Logic – An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. R. and H. J. Levesque (1991). “Confirmations and joint action,” In: Proceedings AJCAI-91, pp.␣951–957

  • Colombetti, M. (2000). “A Commitment-based Approach to Agent Speech acts and Conversations,” In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversation Policies, Barcelona, pp. 21–29

  • Cost R. S., Chen Y., Finin T., Labrou Y., Peng Y. (2000). Issues in Agent Communication – An Introduction, In: Dignum F., Greaves M. (eds.), Issues in Agent Communication. Springer-Verlag, Holland, pp. 178–192

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Delgrande, J. (1988). “An Approach to Default Reasoning Based on a First-order Conditional Logic,” Artificial Intelligence, 36, 63–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgesem, D. (1993). Action Theory and Modal Logic. PhD thesis, Institutt for filosofi. Det historik-filosofiske fakultetet. Universitetet i Oslo. See also Elgesem’s paper ‚The modal logic of agency’ cited below

  • Elgesem D. (1997). The Modal Logic of Agency. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(2):1–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, J. (1995). Les Systèmes Multi-Agents – Vers une Intelligence Collective. InterEditions

  • Fitting M. (1983). Basic Modal Logic. in: Hogger C., Gabbay D. M., Robinson J. (eds.), Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol: 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Føllesdal D. (1967). Comments on Stenius’s ‚Mood and Language Game’, Synthese 17:275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66:377–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosz B. J., Sidner C. L. (1990). Plans for Discourse. in: Cohen P. R., Morgan J., Pollack M. E. (eds.), Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 417–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press

  • Hilpinen R., Follesdal D. (1971). Introduction to Deontic Logic. in: Hilpinen R. (eds.), Deontic Logic. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A. J. I. (1983). Communication and Meaning – An Essay in Applied Modal Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A.J.I. (2002). On the Concept of Trust. Decision Support Systems 33:225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. J. I. (2004). “On Normative- Informational Positions,” In: A. Lomuscio and D. Nute (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop (DEON 2004), Vol. 3065 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Springer, pp. 182–190

  • Jones A. J. I., Kimbrough S. O. (2005). A Note on Modelling Speech acts as Signalling Conventions. in: Kimbrough S. O., Wu D. J. (eds.), Formal Modelling in Electronic Commerce, International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 325–342

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. J. I. and S. O. Kimbrough (2006). “On the Normative Aspect of Signalling Conventions,” In: L. Goble and J. -J. Ch. Meyer (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON06), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, July 2006, Springer (Forthcoming)

  • Jones, A. J. I. and X. Parent (2004). “Conventional Signalling Acts and Conversation,” In: F. Dignum (ed.) Advances in Agent Communication, Vol. 2922 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–17

  • Jones, A. J. I. and M. Sergot (1992). “Formal Specification of Security Requirements Using the Theory of Normative Positions,” In: Y. Deswarte, G. Eizenberg and J.-J. Quisquater (eds.) Computer Security – ESORICS 92, Vol. 648 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, pp. 103–121

  • Jones, A. J. I. and M. Sergot (1996). “A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power,” Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logic, 4, 427–443. Reprinted in E. Garzón Valdés et al. (eds.) Normative Systems in Legal and Moral Theory – Festschrift for Carlos E. Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, Germany, pp. 349–367

  • Kanger S. (1972). Law and Logic. Theoria 38:105–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrough, S. O., A. S. Abrahams, A. J. I. Jones, D. Eyers and J. Bacon (2005). “Introducing the Fair and Logical Trade Project,” In: C. Bartolini, G. Governatori and Z. Milosevic (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Contract Architectures and Languages (CoALa 2005). Enschede, Holland: IEEE Press

  • Labrou, Y. and T. Finin (1997). “Semantics and Conversations for an Agent Communication Language,” In: M. E. Pollack (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence (IJCAI-97). Nagoya, Japan: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 584–591

  • Levi I. (1996). Review of: Making it Explicit. Journal of Philosophy 93:145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. K. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin F., Norrie D.H., Shen W., Kremer K. (2000). A Schema-based Approach to Specifying Conversation Policies. in: Dignum F., Greaves M. (eds.), Issues in Agent Communication. Springer-Verlag, Holland, pp.193–204

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Litman D. J., Allen J. F. (1990). Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans. in: Cohen P. R., Morgan J., Pollack M. E. (eds.), Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 365–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, M. (1996). “Dynamic Arrow Logic,” In: M. Marx, M. Masuch and P. Polos (eds.), Arrow Logic and Multi-Modal Logic. CSLI Publications, pp. 109–129

  • McBurney P., Parsons S. (2002) Games that Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogue Between Autonomous Agents. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information – Special issue on logic and games 11:315–334

    Google Scholar 

  • McBurney, P., S. Parsons and M. Johnson (2002). “When are Two Protocols the Same?”, In: AAMAS Workshop on Agent Communication Languages and Conversational Policies (ACL-02), Bologna, Italy, pp. 71–78

  • Parunak, H. V. (1996). “Visualizing Agent Conversations: Using Enhanced Dooley Graphs for Agent Design and Analysis,” In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multi-agent Systems (ICMAS96), AAII Press, pp. 275–282

  • Pörn I. (1970). The Logic of Power D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Pörn I. (1977). Action Theory and Social Science D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Pörn I. (1989). On the nature of a social order. in: Fenstad J.F., et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VIII. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., New York, pp. 553–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, J. (1999). “An Operational Semantics for Intentional Specifications of Agent Behaviour in Communication Protocols,” In: M. Greaves (ed.), Proceedings AA2000 Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversation Policies. Barcelona: AAII Press, pp. 31–40

  • Pratt, V. R. (1976). “Semantical Considerations on Floyd-Hoare logic,” In: Proc. 17th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 109–121

  • Reed, C. (1998). “Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication,” In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-98). New York: IEEE Press, pp. 246–253

  • Santos, F., A. J. I. Jones and J. Carmo (1997). “Responsibility for Action in Organisations: A Formal Model,” In: G. Holmström-Hintikka and R. Tuomela (eds.), Contemporary Action Theory, Vol. II of Synthese Library 267. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 333–350

  • Searle J. R. (1969). Speech Acts – An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J. R., Vanderveken D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Segerberg K. (1989). Bringing it About. Journal of Philosophical Logic 18:327–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergot M. (1999). Normative Positions. in: McNamara P., Prakken H. (eds.), Norms, Logic and Information Systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 289–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh M. P. (1998). Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles. IEEE Computer 31(12):40–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, I. A., P. R. Cohen, J. M. Bradshaw, M. Greaves and H. Holmback (1998). “Designing Conversation Policies using Joint Intention Theory,” In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-98). IEEE Press: New York

  • Stenius E. (1967). Mood and Language Game. Synthese 17:254–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J. (1991). Language in Action. The MIT Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J. (1994.) A Note on Dynamic Arrow Logics. in: van Eijck J., Visser A. (eds.), Logic and Information Flow. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 15–29

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J. (1996). Exploring Logical Dynamics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California

    Google Scholar 

  • de Venema, Y. (1994). “A Crash Course in Arrow Logic,” In: M. Marx, M. Masuch and P. Polos (eds.) Arrow Logic and Multi-modal Logic. CSLI Publications, pp. 3–34

  • Verdicchio, M. and M. Colombetti (2004). “A Logical Model of Social Commitment for Agent Communication,” In: F. Dignum (ed.). Advances in Agent Communication, Vol. 2922 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp. 128–145

  • Walton, D. N. and E. C. W. Krabbe (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the EU funded 5th Framework project ALFEBIITE (IST--1999--10298). The preparation of this paper continued during the EU funded Working Group iTrust (IST--2001--34910) and the EU funded 6th Framework Integrated Project TrustCoM (IST--2002--2.3.1.9). This support is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, King’s College London, The Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Andrew J. I. Jones

  2. 54 avenue de l’Elisa, 83100, Toulon, France

    Xavier Parent

Authors
  1. Andrew J. I. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Parent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. I. Jones.

Additional information

This paper is a revised and considerably extended version of Jones and Parent (2004). Some of the material included herein appeared in the document ‚A Logical Framework’, written by Andrew J. I. Jones, an unpublished chapter that formed part of the deliverables from the project ALFEBIITE (to which reference is made in the concluding acknowledgements).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, A.J.I., Parent, X. A Convention-based Approach to Agent Communication Languages. Group Decis Negot 16, 101–141 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9059-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9059-1

Key words

Search

Navigation