Cooperative Information Agents and communication

  • E. Verharen
  • F. Dignum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1202)


Research in Information Systems has switched its focus from data to communication. Communication between different autonomous ISs requires a certain amount of intelligence of each system. The system should be able to know which queries it can/may handle and also be able to negotiate about the information that it will give. In short, these systems evolve into what is called Cooperative Information Agents (CIA). We describe an architecture for these CIAs in which the relations of a CIA with other CIAs are handled on two levels. The messages themselves are handled by the communication manager. The communication manager can also negotiate a contract with other CIAs. The contracts (which may include communication or transaction protocols) between agents are handled by the contract manager of the CIA responsible for the contract. The messages between the agents are modeled using speech act theory which provides for a rich and flexible communication. In addition, we describe a lexicon in which the conceptual meaning of the terms of communication can be defined. Together, these levels provide an integrated and rich semantics for the communication between CIAs. These can be interorganizational, as in EDI applications, or intraorganizational, as in Workflow Management.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Austin J.L., How to do things with words, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balmer T. and W. Brennenstuhl Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang M.K. and C.C. Woo, “A Speech Act Based Negotiation Protocol: Design, Implementation and Test Use”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), vol.12, no.4, pp. 360–382, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dignum F. and H. Weigand, “Communication and Deontic Logic”, Information Systems, Correctness and Reusability, R. Wieringa and R. Feenstra (eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 242–260, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dignum F. and H. Weigand, “Modeling Communication between Cooperative Systems”, Proc. of CAISE'95, J. Iivari et. al. (eds.) (LNCS-932), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 140–153, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignum F. and B. van Linder, “Modeling Rational Agents in a Dynamic Environment: Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again”, Proc. of the 2nd workshop of the ModelAge Project, J.L. Fiadeiro and P.-Y. Schobbens (eds.), Sesimbra, Portugal, pp. 81–92, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dik S.C., Functional Grammar, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldkuhl G., “Information as Action and Communication”, The Infological Equation, Essays in honor of B. Langefors, B. Dahlbohm (ed.), Gothenburg Studies in Information Systems, Gothenburg Univ., 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Habermas J., The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Volume One, Beacon Press, Boston, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klusch M. and Shehory O., “Coalition Formation Among Rational Information Agents”, W. vd Velde and J. Perram (eds), Proc. MAAMAW-96, LNAI-1038, Springer-Verlag, p. 204–217, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer J.-J.Ch., “A different approach to deontic logic: deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29(1), pp. 109–136, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ngu A., R.A. Meersman and H. Weigand, “Specification and verification of communication for interoperable transactions”, Int.l. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 3(1), pp.47–65, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nodine M.H., N. Nakos and S. Zdonik, “Specifying Flexible Tasks in a Multidatabase”, ACM SIGOIS Bulletin 16(1), p. 13–17, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norman T., Jennings N., Faratin P. and Mamdani E., “Designing and Implementing a Multi-Agent Architecture for business process management” J. Mueller, M. Wooldridge and N. Jennings (eds.) Intelligent Agents III — Proceedings ATAL-96, p.149–162, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papazoglou M. “An organizational framework for intelligent cooperative IS”, IJICIS-1(1), 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rao A.S. and M.P. Georgeff, “Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture”, Proc. of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR&R-91), R. Fikes and E. Sandewall (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, pp. 473–484, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao A.S. and M.P. Georgeff, “Social plans: preliminary report”, Proc. of Decentralized AI 3 — MAAMAW-91, E. Werner and Y. Demazeau (eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenschein J. and Zlotkin G., “Rules of Encounter”, MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Searle J.R., Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Searle J.R. and D. Vanderveken, Foundations of illocutionary logic, Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shoham Y., “Agent-oriented programming”, Artificial Intelligence 60, pp. 51–92, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verharen E., H. Weigand, and O. De Troyer, “Agent-oriented information system design”, Working Papers, of ISCORE'94, R. Wieringa and R. Feenstra, (eds), Vrije Universiteit Report IR-357, Amsterdam, pp. 378–392, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weigand H., Linguistically Motivated Principles of Knowledge Based Systems, Foris, Dordrecht, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weigand H., “Assessing Functional Grammar for Knowledge Representation”, Data and Knowledge Engineering 8 (1992), pp. 191–203, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weigand H., E. Verharen, and F. Dignum, “Integrated Semantics for Information and Communication Systems”, Proc. of IFIP DS-6, R. Meersman, L. Mark (eds), Stone-Mountain, Georgia, IFIP, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moulin B. and B. Chaib-draa, “An overview of distributed artificial intelligence”, in: Foundations of distributed artificial intelligence, G. O'Hare and N. Jennings (eds.), John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, pp. 3–55, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Decker K. and V. Lesser, “Task environment centerd design of organizations”, AAAI Spring Symp. on Computational Organization Design, Stanford, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Special issue on Intelligent Agents, IEEE Expert, december, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Verharen
    • 1
  • F. Dignum
    • 2
  1. 1.InfolabTilburg UniversityLE TilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics & Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyMB EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations