Towards Data- and Norm-Aware Multiagent Systems

  • Matteo BaldoniEmail author
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Diego Calvanese
  • Roberto Micalizio
  • Marco Montali
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10093)


We recall the key abstractions and models on which the major approaches to software specification rely, using Meyer’s forces of computation as dimensions of comparison. Based on the identified strengths and lacks, we introduce data-awareness and of norm-awareness as recommended properties, explaining the advantages they bring about. We show that multiagent systems are a good candidate for the development of a data- and norm-aware programming, tracing directions for the realization of multiagent systems that are data and norm-aware. Finally, we report and comment some proposals from the multiagent systems literature that, though developed independently and not inserted in an organic framework, already face specific aspects that are relevant to bring about norm and data-awareness.


Business Process Multiagent System Action Force Active Object Process Force 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments. This work was developed during the sabbatical year that Matteo Baldoni and Cristina Baroglio spent at the Free University of Bolzano-Bozen. It was partially supported by the Accountable Trustworthy Organizations and Systems (AThOS) project, funded by Università degli Studi di Torino and Compagnia di San Paolo (CSP 2014).


  1. 1.
    Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., Machiraju, V.: Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Data-Centric Systems and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Empowering agent coordination with social engagement. In: Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Riguzzi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9336, pp. 89–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24309-2_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Leveraging commitments and goals in agent interaction. In: Ancona, D., Maratea, M., Mascardi, V. (eds.) Proceedings of XXX Italian Conference on Computational Logic (CILC) (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., Patti, V., Capuzzimati, F.: Engineering commitment-based business protocols with the 2CL methodology. JAAMAS 28(4), 519–557 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belardinelli, F., Lomuscio, A., Patrizi, F.: A computationally-grounded semantics for artifact-centric systems and abstraction results. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 16–22 July, 2011, pp. 738–743. IJCAI/AAAI (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacharya, K., Caswell, N.S., Kumaran, S., Nigam, A., Frederick, Y.W.: Artifact-centered operational modeling: lessons from customer engagements. IBM Syst. J. 46(4), 703–721 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Regulative, constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C.A., Williams, M-A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), Whistler, Canada, 2–5 June, pp. 255–266. AAAI Press (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W. N., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to normative multiagent systems. In: Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-agent Systems, 18.03. – 23.03.2007, vol. 07122 of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Ricci, A., Santi, A.: Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(6), 747–761 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bordini, R.H., Fred Hübner, J., Wooldridge, M.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. Wiley, Chichester (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bratman, M.E.: What is intention? In: Cohen, P., Morgan, J., Pollack, M. (eds.) Intensions in Communication, pp. 15–31. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Auton. Agent. Multi Agent Syst. 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bridgeland, D.M., Zahavi, R.: Business Modeling: A Practical Guide to Realizing Business Value. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M.: Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: Hull, R., Fan, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 2013), New York, NY, USA, 22–27 June, pp. 1–12. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Constitutive interoperability. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 2, pp. 797–804. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Agent communication. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent Systems, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Cupid: commitments in relational algebra. In: Bonet, B., Koenig, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 25–30 January, Austin, Texas, USA, pp. 2052–2059. AAAI Press (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Criado, N., Argente, E., Noriega, P., Botti, V.: Reasoning about constitutive norms in BDI agents. Logic J. IGPL 22(1), 66–93 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dastani, M., van der Torre, L., Yorke-Smith, V.: Commitments and interaction norms in organisations. In: Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1–43 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brito, M., Hübner, J.F., Boissier, O.: A conceptual model for situated artificial institutions. In: Bulling, N., Torre, L., Villata, S., Jamroga, W., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) CLIMA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8624, pp. 35–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09764-0_3 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Demazeau, Y.: From interactions to collective behaviour in agent-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Cognitive Science, pp. 117–132, Saint-Malo (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Amoeba: a methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19(2), 6 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Di Leva, A., Femiano, S.: The BP-M* methodology for process analysis in the health sector. Intell. Inf. Manage. 3(2), 56–63 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Communicating open systems. Artif. Intell. 186, 38–94 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gibbs, J.P.: Norms: the problem of definition and classification. Am. J. Sociol. 70(5), 586–594 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Governatori, G.: Law, logic and business processes. In: Third International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW 2010), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 28 September, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: “We need to discuss the relationship”: revisiting relationships as modeling constructs. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 279–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: Relationships, events: towards a general theory of reification and truthmaking. In: Advances in Artificial Intelligence - XVth International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2016), Genova, Italy, Proceedings, LNCS. Springer (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hewitt, C., Bishop, P., Steiger, R.: A universal modular ACTOR formalism for artificial intelligence. In: Nilsson, N.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Standford, CA, pp. 235–245. William Kaufmann (1973)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jennings, N.R.: On agent-based software engineering. Artif. Intell. 117(2), 277–296 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jones, A.J.I., Carmo, J.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D. (ed.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 203–279. Kluwer (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitchell, J.C.: Concepts in Programming Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Molesini, A., Omicini, A., Denti, E., Ricci, A.: SODA: a roadmap to artefacts. In: Dikenelli, O., Gleizes, M.-P., Ricci, A. (eds.) ESAW 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3963, pp. 49–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11759683_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Montali, M., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Verification of data-aware commitment-based multiagent system. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Huhns, M.N., Lomuscio, A., Scerri, P. (eds.) International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2014), Paris, France, 5–9 May, pp. 157–164. IFAAMAS/ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neykova, R., Yoshida, N.: Multiparty session actors. In: Kühn, E., Pugliese, R. (eds.) COORDINATION 2014. LNCS, vol. 8459, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43376-8_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M.: Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 17(3), 432–456 (2008). Special Issue on Foundations, Advanced Topics and Industrial Perspectives of Multi-Agent SystemsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ricci, A., Piunti, M., Viroli, M.: Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 23(2), 158–192 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ricci, A., Santi, A.: From actors and concurrent objects to agent-oriented programming in simpAL. In: Agha, G., Igarashi, A., Kobayashi, N., Masuhara, H., Matsuoka, S., Shibayama, E., Taura, K. (eds.) Papers dedicated to Akinori Yonezawa on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. LNCS, vol. 8665, pp. 408–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44471-9_17 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Upper Sadle River (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shoham, Y.: Agent-oriented programming. Artif. Intell. 60(1), 51–92 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Singh, M.P.: Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM TIST 5(1), 21 (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Singh, M.P., Huhns, M.N.: Service-Oriented Computing - Semantics, Processes, Agents. Wiley, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tasharofi, S., Dinges, P., Johnson, R.E.: Why do scala developers mix the actor model with other concurrency models? In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ECOOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7920, pp. 302–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39038-8_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P., Yorke-Smith, N.: Relating goal and commitment semantics. In: Dennis, L., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H. (eds.) ProMAS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7217, pp. 22–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31915-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Therborn, G.: Back to norms! on the scope and dynamics of norms and normative action. Current Sociol. 50, 863–880 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Weyns, D., Omicini, A., Odell, J.: Environment as a first class abstraction in multiagent systems. JAAMAS 14(1), 5–30 (2007)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wooldridge, M.J.: Introduction to Multiagent Systems, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: the Gaia methodology. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Baldoni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristina Baroglio
    • 1
  • Diego Calvanese
    • 2
  • Roberto Micalizio
    • 1
  • Marco Montali
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.KRDB Research CentreFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations