Advertisement

An Organisational Approach to the Design of Interaction Protocols

  • Juan Manuel Serrano
  • Sascha Ossowski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2650)

Abstract

Modern ACLs, such as FIPA ACL, provide standardised catalogues of performatives and protocols, designed as general purpose languages to ensure interoperability among agent systems. However, recent work reports a need for new ad-hoc sets of performatives and protocols in certain contexts, showing that FIPA ACL does not support adequately all relevant types of interactions. In this paper we first present a formal model that relates performatives and protocols, to the organisation of MAS. Then, the FIPA IPL is analysed from the perspective of this formal model and a principled method for the design of the IPL of a particular MAS is developed, which account for both, reusability and expressiveness. Finally, we illustrate our approach by an example in the domain of online stock brokering.

Keywords

Multiagent System Message Exchange Organisational Approach Organisational Concept Illocutionary Action 
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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bradshaw, J.M., Dutfield, S., Benoit, P., Woolley, J.D.: KAoS: Toward an industrial-strength open agent architecture. In: Bradshaw, J.M. (ed.) Software Agents. ch. 17, pp. 375–418. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaib-Draa, B., Dignum, F.: Trends in agent communication language. Computational Intelligence 18(2), 1–14 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Esteva, M., Rodriguez, J.A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.L.: On the formal specifications of electronic institutions. In: Dignum, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) Agent-mediated Electronic Commerce (The European AgentLink Perspective). LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1191, pp. 126–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferber, J., Gutknetch, O.: A meta-model for the analysis of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: Demazeau, Y. (ed.) ICMAS 1998, pp. 128–135. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Finin, T., Labrou, Y., Mayfield, J.: Kqml as an agent communication language. In: Bradshaw, J.M. (ed.) Software Agents, AAAI Press / The MIT Press (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification (2000), http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037
  7. 7.
    Gottlob, G., Schrefl, M., Röck, B.: Extending object-oriented systems with roles. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 14, 268–296 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuwabara, K., Ishida, T., Osato, N.: Agentalk: Coordination protocol description for multiagent systems. In: Lesser, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi–Agent Systems, San Francisco, CA, p. 455. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nodine, M.H., Unruh, A.: Constructing robust conversation policies in dynamic agent communities. In: Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication, pp. 205–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pitt, J., Mamdani, A.: Designing agent communication languages for multiagent systems. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1647, pp. 102–114. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Searle, J.: Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serrano, J.M., Ossowski, S.: An organizational metamodel for the design of catalogues of communicative actions. In: Kuwabara, K., Lee, J. (eds.) PRIMA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2413, pp. 92–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serrano, J.M., Ossowski, S.: Towards structured libraries of communicative acts. In: Petta, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Symposium: From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation, Vienna. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wierzbicka, A.: English speech act verbs. A semantic dictionary. Academic Press, Australia (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The gaia methodology for agentoriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Manuel Serrano
    • 1
  • Sascha Ossowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Group, School of EngineeringUniversity Rey Juan Carlos 

Personalised recommendations