DALT 2003: Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies pp 191-220 | Cite as
A Social Approach to Communication in Multiagent Systems
Conference paper
Abstract
This paper aims at defining the semantics of Agent Communication Languages (ACLs) in terms of changes in the social relationships between agents, represented in terms of social commitments. We take commitment to be a primitive concept underlying the social dimension of multiagent systems, and define a basic artificial institution that provides agents with the means to affect the commitment network that binds them to each other. Two different approaches are adopted for the presentation of our proposal: a logical formalization and an operational specification.
Keywords
Multiagent System Agent Communication Social Approach Basic Institution Core Ontology
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.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In: Cohen, P., Morgan, J., Pollack, M. (eds.) Intentions in communication, pp. 221–256. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
- 2.Finin, T., Labrou, Y., Mayfield, J.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Bradshaw, J. (ed.) Software agents, The MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
- 3.Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents: FIPA 1997 Specification Part 2: Agent Communication Language (1997)Google Scholar
- 4.Singh, M.P.: Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31, 40–47 (1998)Google Scholar
- 5.Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1999 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, pp. 75–88 (1999)Google Scholar
- 6.Colombetti, M.: A commitment–based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In: Proc. Workshop on Agent Languages and Communication Policies, 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2000), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 21–29 (2000)Google Scholar
- 7.Pitt, J., Mamdani, A.: A protocol-based semantics for an agent communication language. In: Thomas, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1999), vol. 1, pp. 486–491. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
- 8.Jones, A., Parent, X.: Conventional signalling acts and conversation. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) (to be published)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In: Rosenschein, J.S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yokoo, M. (eds.) Proc. Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 528–535. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, W.L. (eds.) Proc. First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, pp. 535–542. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
- 11.Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Defining interaction protocols using a commitmentbased agent communication language. In: Rosenschein, J.S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yokoo, M. (eds.) Proc. Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2003), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 520–527. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Colombetti, M., Verdicchio, M.: An analysis of agent speech acts as institutional actions. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, W.L. (eds.) Proc. First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, pp. 1157–1166. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
- 14.Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Modeling Interactions Using Social Integrity Constraints: A Resource Sharing Case Study. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, pp. 243–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Searle, J.R.: The construction of social reality. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
- 16.Jones, A., Sergot, M.J.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 4, 429–445 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 17.Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: ‘Sometimes’ and ‘Not Never’ Revisited. Journal of the ACM 33, 151–178 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 18.Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.L.: On the formal specification of electronic institutions. In: Sierra, C., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AgentLink 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 126–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Vasconcelos, W.W.: Logic-based electronic institutions. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, pp. 221–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Reichenbach, H.: Elements of Symbolic Logic. MacMillan, New York (1947)Google Scholar
- 21.Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D.: Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 22.Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents: FIPA Content Language (CL) Specifications (2003), http://www.fipa.org
- 23.Ferguson, G., Allen, J., Fikes, R., Hayes, P., McDermott, D., Niles, I., Pease, A., Tate, A., Tyson, M., Waldinger, R.: A DAML ontology of time (2002), http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~ferguson/daml/
- 24.Harnad, S.: The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42, 335–346 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004