Run-Time Semantics of a Language for Programming Social Processes

  • Juan M. Serrano
  • Sergio Saugar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5405)


There is a broad range of application domains which can be described under the heading of social process domains: business processes, social networks, game servers, etc. This paper puts forward a programming language approach to the formal specification of social processes, building upon the C+ action description language. Particularly, the paper focuses on the run-time semantics of the language, which is delivered as a core layer of application-independent sorts which make up the abstract machine of the language. The advantages of the presented approach with respect to other state-of-the-art proposals lie in its strong support for modularity and reusability, and hence for the development of large-scale, elaboration tolerant, specifications of social processes.


Social Action Social Process Multiagent System Software Component Program Committee 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akman, V., Erdogan, S.T., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Representing the zoo world and the traffic world in the language of the causal calculator. Artif. Intell 153(1-2), 105–140 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C., Gelfond, M.: Logic programming and reasoning about actions. In: Handbook of Temporal Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence, ch. 13, pp. 389–496. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., Damiano, R., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: A common ontology of agent communication languages: Modeling mental attitudes and social commitments using roles. Applied Ontology 2(3-4), 217–265 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Padget, J.A.: Answer set programming for representing and reasoning about virtual institutions. In: Inoue, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F. (eds.) CLIMA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4371, pp. 60–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dastani, M., Tinnemeier, N., Meyer, J.-J.C.: A programming language for normative multi-agent systems. In: Dignum, V. (ed.): Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models. IGI Global (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dennis, L.A., Fisher, M., Hepple, A.: Language constructs for multi-agent programming. In: Sadri, F., Satoh, K. (eds.) CLIMA VIII. LNCS, vol. 5056, pp. 137–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes. In: AAAI XXII, pp. 1328–1333. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desai, N., Singh, M.P.: A modular action description language for protocol composition. In: AAAI XXII, pp. 962–967. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Arcos, J.L.: Ameli: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: AAMAS III, pp. 236–243. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153(1-2), 49–104 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: S-moise+: A middleware for developing organised multi-agent systems. In: Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Matson, E., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) COIN 2006. LNCS, vol. 3913, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lifschitz, V., Ren, W.: A modular action description language. In: AAAI XXI. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mehta, N.R., Medvidovic, N., Phadke, S.: Towards a taxonomy of software connectors. In: ICSE XXII, pp. 178–187. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reiter, R.: On closed world databases. In: Gallaire, Minker (eds.) Logic and Databases, pp. 55–76. Plenum Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saugar, S., Serrano, J.M.: A web-based virtual machine for developing computational societies. In: Klusch, M., Pěchouček, M., Polleres, A. (eds.) CIA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5180, pp. 162–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serrano, J.M., Saugar, S.: Operational semantics of multiagent interactions. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Shehory, O. (eds.) AAMAS VI, pp. 889–896. IFAAMAS (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Viganó, F., Colombetti, M.: Specification and verification of institutions through status functions. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4386, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan M. Serrano
    • 1
  • Sergio Saugar
    • 1
  1. 1.University Rey Juan Carlos, C/Tulipan S/NMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations