Semantic Issues in the Verification of Agent Communication Languages

  • Michael Wooldridge


This article examines the issue of developing semantics for agent communication languages. In particular, it considers the problem of giving a verifiable semantics for such languages—a semantics where conformance (or otherwise) to the semantics could be determined by an independent observer. These problems are precisely defined in an abstract formal framework. Using this framework, a number of example agent communication frameworks are defined. A discussion is then presented, of the various options open to designers of agent communication languages, with respect the problem of verifying conformance.

agent communication languages semantics verification conformance testing standards 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Abadi, ''Temporal logic theorem proving,'' Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. F. Allen, J. Hendler, and A. Tate (Eds.), Readings in Planning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. E. Appelt, Planning English Sentences, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 1962.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Benerecetti, F. Giunchiglia, and L. Serafini, ''A model checking algorithm for multiagent systems,'' in Intelligent Agents VProceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages ATAL-98, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. H. Bond and L. Gasser (Eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore (Eds.), The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. I. Brafman and M. Tennenholtz, ''Modeling agents as qualitative decision makers,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 94(1–2), pp. 217–268, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Breitier and D. Sadek, ''A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: Implementing a logical theory of interaction,'' in Intelligent Agents III LNAI Volume 1193, J. P. Müller, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings (Eds.), 1997, pp. 189–204.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Long, ''Verification tools for finite-state concurrent systems,'' in A Decade of ConcurrencyReflections and Perspectives LNCS Volume 803, J. W. de Bakker, W. P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg (Eds.), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1994, pp. 124–175.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson, ''Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic,'' in Logics of ProgramsProceedings 1981 LNCS Volume 131, D. Kozen (Ed.), 1981, pp. 52–71.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque, ''Intention is choice with commitment,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 42, pp. 213–261, 1990a.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque, ''Rational interaction as the basis for communication,'' in Intentions in Communication, P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (Eds.), The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1990b, pp. 221–256.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque, ''Communicative actions for artificial agents,'' in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems ICMAS-95, San Francisco, CA, 1995, pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. R. Cohen and C. R. Perrault, ''Elements of a plan based theory of speech acts,'' Cognitive Science, vol. 3, pp. 177–212, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. A. Emerson, ''Temporal and modal logic,'' in Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990, pp. 996–1072.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi, Reasoning about Knowledge, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. E. Fikes and N. Nilsson, ''STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5(2), pp. 189–208, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    FIPA, ''Specification Part 2—Agent Communication Language,'' The text refers to the specification dated 23 October 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Guilfoyle, J. Jeffcoate, and H. Stark, Agents on the Web: Catalyst for E-Commerce, Ovum Ltd.: London, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Y. Halpern and Y. Moses, ''A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 54, pp. 319–379, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Y. Halpern and M. Y. Vardi, ''Model checking versus theorem proving: A manifesto,'' in AI and Mathematical Theory of ComputationPapers in Honor of John McCarthy, V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Academic Press, 1991, pp. 151–176.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Harel, ''Dynamic logic,'' in Handbook of Philosophical Logic Volum IIExtensions of Classical Logic, D. Gabbay and F. Guenther (Eds.), D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984, pp. 497–604 Synthese library Volume 164.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. A. R. Hoare, ''An axiomatic basis for computer programming,'' Communications of the ACM, vol. 12(10), pp. 576–583, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    N. R. Jennings, ''Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems,'' The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 8(3), pp. 223–250, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y. Labrou and T. Finin, ''Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language,'' in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-97, Nagoya, Japan, 1997, pp. 584–591.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O. Lichtenstein and A. Pnueli, ''Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification,'' in Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, 1984, pp. 97–107.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli, The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli, Temporal Verification of Reactive SystemsSafety, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Mayfield, Y. Labrou, and T. Finin, ''Evaluating KQML as an Agent Communication Language,'' in Intelligent Agents II LNAI Volume 1037, M. Wooldridge, J. P. Müller, and M. Tambe (Eds.), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1996, pp. 347–360.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. C. Moore, ''A formal theory of knowledge and action,'' in Readings and Planning, J. F. Allen, J. Hendler, and A. Tate (Eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1990, pp. 480–519.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. H. Papadimitriou, Computational Complexity, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. S. Patil, R. E. Fikes, P. F. Patel-Schneider, D. McKay, T. Finin, T. Gruber, and R. Neches, ''The DARPA knowledge sharing effort: Progress report,'' in Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR& R-92, C. Rich, W. Swartout, and B. Nebel (Eds.), 1992, pp. 777–788.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Pitt and E. H. Mamdani, ''A protocol-based semantics for an agent communication language,'' in Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-99, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, ''A model-theoretic approach to the verification of situated reasoning systems,'' in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-93, Chambery, France, 1993, pp. 318–324.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin, Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    T. Sandholm, ''Distributed rational decision making,'' in Multiagent Systems, G. Weiss (Ed.), The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1999, pp. 201–258.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1969.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Singh, ''Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles,'' IEEE Computer, pp. 40–47, 1998.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Wooldridge, ''Verifying that agents implement a communication language,'' in Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence AAAI-99, Orlando, FL, 1999, pp. 52–57.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, ''Intelligent agents: Theory and practice,'' The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 10(2), pp. 115–152, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Wooldridge
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronic EngineeringQueen Mary and Westfield CollegeLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations