Advertisement

Norm Enforceability in Electronic Institutions?

  • Natalia Criado
  • Estefania Argente
  • Antonio Garrido
  • Juan A. Gimeno
  • Francesc Igual
  • Vicente Botti
  • Pablo Noriega
  • Adriana Giret
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6541)

Abstract

Nowadays Multi-Agent Systems require more and more regulation and normative mechanisms in order to assure the correct and secure execution of the interactions and transactions in the open virtual organization they are implementing. The Electronic Institution approach for developing Multi-Agent Systems implements some enforceability mechanisms in order to control norms execution and observance. In this paper we study a complex situation in a regulated environment in which the enforceability mechanisms provided by the current Electronic Institutions implementation cannot deal appropriately with norm observance. The analyzed situation is exemplified with a specific scenario of the mWater regulated environment, an electronic market for water-rights transfer. After this example is presented, we extrapolate it to a more generic domain while also addressing the main issues for its application in general scenarios.

Keywords

Multiagent System Water User Autonomous Agent Dispute Resolution Enforceability Mechanism 
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.
    Arcos, J., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., Sierra, C.: Engineering open environments with electronic institutions. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence (18), 191–204 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balke, T.: A taxonomy for ensuring institutional compliance in utility computing. In: Boella, G., Noriega, P., Pigozzi, G., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Dagstuhl, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 09121. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to the special issue on normative multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(1), 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Substantive and procedural norms in normative multiagent systems. Journal of Applied Logic 6(2), 152–171 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Botti, V., Garrido, A., Giret, A., Igual, F., Noriega, P.: On the design of mWater: a case study for Agreement Technologies. In: 7th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems - EUMAS 2009, pp. 1–15 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Formalising the informal? Journal of Applied Logic (1) (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Criado, N., Julián, V., Botti, V., Argente, E.: A Norm-based Organization Management System. In: Padget, J., Artikis, A., Vasconcelos, W., Stathis, K., da Silva, V.T., Matson, E., Polleres, A. (eds.) COIN 2009. LNCS, vol. 6069, pp. 19–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esteva, M.: Electronic Institutions: from specification to development. IIIA PhD Monography 19 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esteva, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.: On the formal specification of electronic institutions. In: Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce, pp. 126–147 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Arcos, J.L.: Ameli: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, p. 243. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Euzenat, J., Laera, L., Tamma, V., Viollet, A.: D2.3.7: Negotiation/argumentation techniques among agents complying to different ontologies. Tech. Report. KWEB/2004/D2.3.7/v1.0 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions (short paper). In: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), pp. 1481–1484 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaertner, D., Garcia-Camino, A., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Vasconcelos, W.: Distributed norm management in regulated multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p. 90. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    García-Camino, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Vasconcelos, W.W.: Norm-oriented programming of electronic institutions. In: Proc. International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 670–672. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gateau, B., Khadraoui, D.: Arbitration of Autonomous Multimedia Objects with a Multi-Agent System. Proceeding of 2nd Information and Communication Technologies, pp. 3007–3012 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.: Ubi lex, ibi poena: Designing norm enforcement in e-institutions. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4386, pp. 101–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hübner, J.F., Boissier, O., Kitio, R., Ricci, A.: Instrumenting multi-agent organisations with organisational artifacts and agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 20(3), 369–400 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minsky, N.H., Ungureanu, V.: A mechanism for establishing policies for electronic commerce. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, vol. 18, pp. 322–331. Citeseer (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minsky, N.H., Ungureanu, V.: Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 9(3), 273–305 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Modgil, S., Faci, N., Meneguzzi, F.R., Oren, N., Miles, S., Luck, M.: A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In: Sierra, C., Castelfranchi, C., Decker, K.S., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) AAMAS, pp. 153–160. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Noriega, P.: Agent-mediated auctions: The fishmarket metaphor. IIIA Phd Monography 8 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    North, D.C.: Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge Univ Pr, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M.: Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(3), 432–456 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodrıguez-Aguilar, J.A.: On the design and construction of agent-mediated electronic institutions. IIIA Phd Monography 14 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artif. Intell. Rev. 24(1), 33–60 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz, T., Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Langer, D., Bonnet, V.: Online dispute resolution: The state of the art and the issues, SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstarct=899079
  27. 27.
    Slate, W.K.: Online dispute resolution: Click here to settle your dispute. Dispute Resolution Journal 56(4), 8–14 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge Univ Pr, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia Criado
    • 1
  • Estefania Argente
    • 1
  • Antonio Garrido
    • 1
  • Juan A. Gimeno
    • 1
  • Francesc Igual
    • 1
  • Vicente Botti
    • 1
  • Pablo Noriega
    • 2
  • Adriana Giret
    • 1
  1. 1.DSIC, Department of Information Systems and ComputationUniversitat Politècnica de ValenciaSpain
  2. 2.IIIA, Artificial Intelligence Research InstituteCSIC, Spanish Scientific Research CouncilSpain

Personalised recommendations