Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 97–113 | Cite as

An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems:

  • Munindar P. Singh
Article

Abstract

Social commitments have long been recognized as an important concept for multiagent systems. We propose a rich formulation of social commitments that motivates an architecture for multiagent systems, which we dub spheres of commitment. We identify the key operations on commitments and multiagent systems. We distinguish between explicit and implicit commitments. Multiagent systems, viewed as spheres of commitment (SoComs), provide the context for the different operations on commitments. Armed with the above ideas, we can capture normative concepts such as obligations, taboos, conventions, and pledges as different kinds of commitments. In this manner, we synthesize ideas from multiagent systems, particularly the idea of social context, with ideas from ethics and legal reasoning, specifically that of directed obligations in the Hohfeldian tradition.

commitments multiagent systems norms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón, Carlos E. & Bulygin, Eugenio (1981). The expressive conception of norms. In: (Hilpinen, 1981). 95-124.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, Nicholas M. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, John L.; (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, Jon (1989a). On the model theory of common knowledge. In: (Barwise, 1989b). 201-220.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, Jon (1989b). The Situation in Logic. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford.Google Scholar
  6. Boman, Magnus (1996). Implementing norms through normative advice. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS) Workshop on Norms, Obligations, and Conventions.Google Scholar
  7. Castañeda, Hector-Neri (1975). Thinking and Doing: The Philosophical Foundations of Institutions. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Castelfranchi, Cristiano (1995). Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multiagent Systems. 41-48.Google Scholar
  9. Chandy, K.M. & Misra, Jayadev (1986). How processes learn. Distributed Computing 1, 40-52.Google Scholar
  10. Demazeau, Yves & Müller, Jean-Pierre (eds) (1991). Decentralized Artificial Intelligence, Volume 2. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Dunin-Keplicz, Barbara & Verbrugge, Rineke (1996). Collective commitments. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multiagent Systems. 56-63.Google Scholar
  12. Edel, Abraham (1961). Science and the structure of ethics. In: Carnap, Rudolf, & Morris, Charles (eds.) (1970). Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, volume II. (Neurath et al., 1970). University of Chicago Press. 273-377.Google Scholar
  13. Fagin, Ronald, Halpern, Joseph Y., Moses, Yoram & Vardi, Moshe Y. (1995). Reasoning About Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Føllesdal, Dagfinn & Hilpinen, Risto (1971). New foundations for ethical theory. In: (Hilpinen, 1971). 1-35.Google Scholar
  15. Glaser, Norbert & Morignot, Philippe (1997). The reorganization of societies of autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW). 98-111.Google Scholar
  16. Goldman, Alvin I. (1970). A Theory of Human Action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  17. Herrestad, Henning & Krogh, Christen (1995). Obligations directed from bearers to counterparties. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. 210-218.Google Scholar
  18. Hilpinen, Risto (ed.) (1971). Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, volume 33 of Synthese Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  19. Hilpinen, Risto (ed.) (1981). New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions, and the Foundations of Ethics, volume 152 of Synthese Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  20. Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb (1919). Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and other Legal Essays. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. A 1919 printing of articles from 1913.Google Scholar
  21. Holmström, Ghita & Jones, Andrew J.I. (eds.) (1985). Action, Logic and Social Theory. Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  22. Huhns, Michael N. & Singh, Munindar P. (eds.) (1998). Readings in Agents, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  23. Jennings, N.R. (1993). Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multiagent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 2(3), 223-250.Google Scholar
  24. Kanger, Stig (1971). New foundations for ethical theory. In: (Hilpinen, 1971). 36-58.Google Scholar
  25. Kanger, Stig (1985). On realization of human rights. In: Jones, Andrew J.I. (eds.) (1985). Action, Logic and Social Theory. Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki (Holmström & Jones, 1985). 71-78.Google Scholar
  26. Levesque, H.J., Cohen, P.R. & Nunes, J.T. (1990). On acting together. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 94-99.Google Scholar
  27. Morse, H. Newcomb (1995a). Hohfeld. In: (Morse, 1995b). Chapter 10, 213-245.Google Scholar
  28. Morse, H. Newcomb (1995b). The Thinkers. University Press of America, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  29. Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf, & Morris, Charles (eds.) (1970). Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, volume II. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Originally published as separate monographs.Google Scholar
  30. Ross, William D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Searle, John R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  32. Segerberg, Krister (1971). Some logics of commitment and obligation. In: (Hilpinen, 1971). 148-158.Google Scholar
  33. Segerberg, Krister (1989). Bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic 18, 327-347.Google Scholar
  34. Sichman, Jaime Simão, Conte, Rosaria, Demazeau, Yves, & Castelfranchi, Cristiano (1994). A social reasoning mechanism based on dependence networks. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 188-192. Reprinted in Huhns & Singh (1998).Google Scholar
  35. Singh, Munindar P. (1991a). Group ability and structure. In: Müller, Jean-Pierre (eds) (1991). Decentralized Artificial Intelligence, Volume 2. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam (Demazeau & Müller, 1991). 127-145.Google Scholar
  36. Singh, Munindar P. (1991b). Social and psychological commitments in multiagent systems. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Knowledge and Action at Social and Organizational Levels. 104-106.Google Scholar
  37. Singh, Munindar P. (1994). Multiagent Systems: A Theoretical Framework for Intentions, Know-How, and Communications. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  38. Singh, Munindar P. (1997). Commitments among autonomous agents in information-rich environments. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW). 141-155.Google Scholar
  39. von Wright, Georg Henrik (1963). Norm and Action. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  40. von Wright, Georg Henrik (1968). An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action, volume 21 of Acta Philosophica Fennica. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Munindar P. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations