Modeling Control Mechanisms with Normative Multiagent Systems: The Case of the Renewables Obligation

  • Guido Boella
  • Joris Hulstijn
  • Yao-Hua Tan
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3913)

Abstract

This paper is about control mechanisms for virtual organizations. As a case study, we discuss the Renewables Obligation (RO), a control mechanism that was introduced in the United Kingdom to stimulate the production of renewable energy. We apply a conceptual model based on normative multiagent systems (NMAS). We propose to model both the participants and the normative system as autonomous agents, having beliefs and goals. Norms, which can be internalized by the agents as obligations, are translated into conditional beliefs and goals of the normative system, which concern both detection and sanctioning measures. We show that the model can handle both the regulative and the evidential aspects of the case.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, A.: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67, 100–103 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin, J.L.: How to do things with words. Harvard U.P., Cambridge, MA (1962)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., Hulstijn, J., Tan, Y.-H., van der Torre, L.: Transaction trust in normative multiagent systems. In: Castelfranchi, C., Barber, S., Sabater, J., Singh, M. (eds.) Proceedings of AAMAS Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies (Trust 2005), Utrecht, The Nederlands (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: A game theoretic approach to contracts in multiagent systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part C, Special issue on Game-theoretic Analysis and Stochastic Simulation of Negotiation Agents (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Security policies for sharing knowledge in virtual communities. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part A, Special issue on Secure Knowledge Management (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bons, R.W.H., Dignum, F., Lee, R.M., Tan, Y.-H.: A formal analysis of auditing principles for electronic trade procedures. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 5(1), 57–82 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Van der Torre, L.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 431–450 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the TROPOS project. Information Systems 27, 365–389 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-Agent Systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordijn, J., Tan, Y.-H.: A design methodology for trust and value exchanges in business models. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9(3), 31 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, J.M.: Value-based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Engineering 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansson, B.: An analysis of some deontic logics. Nôus 3, 373–398 (1969)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, A., Carmo, J.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D. (ed.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 203–279. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kartseva, V., Gordijn, J., Tan, Y.-H.: Value-based business modelling for network organizations: Lessons learned from the electricity sector. In: Becker, J., Bodendorf, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2004), Turku (2004) (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kartseva, V., Gordijn, J., Tan, Y.-H.: Towards a modelling tool for designing control mechanisms in network organisations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    King, A.: 2005/6 review of the renewables obligation statutory consultation. Technical Report september 2005, Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, R.M., Bons, R.W.H.: Soft-coded trade procedures for open-edi. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1(1), 27–49 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29, 383–408 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    OFGEM. Renewables Obligation - Atlantic Electric and Gas Limited and Maverick Energy Limited. Technical Report R/65, Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, United Kingdom (2004), www.ofgas.gov.uk
  20. 20.
    OFGEM. The renewables obligation: Annual report 2003-2004. Technical Report HC 786, Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, United Kingdom (2004), www.ofgas.gov.uk
  21. 21.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: An eBusiness model ontology for modeling eBusiness. In: Gricar, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference – eReality: Constructing the eEconomy (Bled 2002), pp. 75–91 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sarkar, M.B., Butler, C., Steinfield, B.: Cybermediaries in electronic marketspace: Toward theory building. Journal of Business Research 41, 215–221 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sethi, R., Somanathan, E.: The evolution of social norms in common property resource use. American Economuic Review 86(4), 766–789 (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tapscott, D., Lowy, A., Ticoll, D.: Harnessing the Power of Business Webs. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Timmers, P.: Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets 8(2), 3–8 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wooldridge, M.J., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  • Joris Hulstijn
    • 2
  • Yao-Hua Tan
    • 2
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 3
  1. 1.Universitá di Torino 
  2. 2.Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdam
  3. 3.CWI Amsterdam and Delft University of Technology 

Personalised recommendations