Advertisement

Modeling Communicative Behavior Using Permissions and Obligations

  • Lalana Kagal
  • Tim Finin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3396)

Abstract

In order to provide flexible control over agent communication, we propose an integrated approach that involves using positive and negative permissions and obligations to describe both conversation specifications and policies. Conversation specifications are described in terms of the speech acts that an agent can/cannot/must/must not perform based on the sequence of messages received and sent. On the other hand, conversation policies restrict how the specifications are used and are defined over the attributes of the sender, receiver, message content, and context in general. Other policies like management, social, privacy etc. are defined at a higher level of abstraction and restrict the general behavior of agents. Whenever they deal with communication, the higher level policies are translated into conversation policies using the syntax and semantics of the specific communication language being used. Agents use a policy engine for reasoning over conversation specifications and applicable policies in order to decide what communicative act to perform next. Our work is different from existing research in communication policies because it is not tightly coupled to any domain information such as mental states of agents or specific communicative acts.The main contributions of this work include (i) an extensible framework that can support varied domain knowledge and different agent communication languages, and (ii) the declarative representation of conversation specifications and policies in terms of permitted and obligated speech acts.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Flores, R., Kremer, R.: A Model for Flexible Composition of Conversations: How a Simple Conversation got so Complicated. In: Huget, M.P., Dignum, F., Koning, J.L. (eds.) 3rd Workshop on Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies. First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, July 15-19 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greaves, M., Holmback, H., Bradshaw, J.: What is a conversation policy? In: Autonomous Agents 1999 Workshop on Specifying and Implementing Conversation Policies (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Phillips, L.R., Link, H.E.: The Role of Conversation Policy in Carrying Out Agent Conversations. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 132–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kagal, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: Declarative Policies for Describing Web Service Capabilities and Constraints. In: W3C Workshop on Constraints and Capabilities for Web Services, W3C. Oracle Conference Center, Redwood Shores (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    FIPA: Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents Specifications, http://www.fipa.org
  6. 6.
    Cable News Network (CNN): Probe under way on Medicare cost (2004), http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/medicare.investigation/
  7. 7.
    W3C: OWL Web Ontology Language (2004), http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/
  8. 8.
    Moffett, J., Sloman, M.: Policy Conflict Analysis in Distributed Systems Management. Journal of Organizational Computing (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: A semantics approach for KQML – a general purpose communication language for software agents. In: Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 1994 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kagal, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: A Policy Language for Pervasive Systems. In: Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kagal, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: A Policy Based Approach to Security for the Semantic Web. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 402–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lupu, E.C., Sloman, M.: Conflicts in Policy-Based Distributed Systems Management. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lupu, E.C., Sloman, M.: Towards a Role Based Framework for Distributed Systems Management. In: Journal of Networks and Systemss Management. Plenum Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zou, Y., Chan, H., Finin, T.: F-OWL: an Inference Engine for Semantic Web. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) FAABS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3228, pp. 238–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. In: Artificial Intelligence (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh, M.: Towards a formal theory of communication for multiagent systems. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh, M.: A semantics for speech acts. In: Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In: Second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 520–527. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cost, R.S., Chen, Y., Finin, T.W., Labrou, Y., Peng, Y.: Using Colored Petri Nets for Conversation Modeling. In: Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.) Agent Communication Languages. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1916, pp. 178–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.: Norm consistency in practical reasoning agents (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID Architecture Conflicts Between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions and Desire (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mallya, A.U., Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Resolving Commitments Among Autonomous Agents. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 166–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lalana Kagal
    • 1
  • Tim Finin
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Maryland Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations