Verifying MSMAS Model Using \(\mathcal{S}\)CIFF

  • Emad Eldeen Elakehal
  • Marco Montali
  • Julian Padget
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8076)


MSMAS is a software development methodology that facilities the design and development of complex distributed systems based on the multiagent systems paradigm. MSMAS explicitly supports the institutional organisational structure and follows a declarative modelling style to specify behavioural restrictions on the members of the institution, their roles, the business processes regulating their behavior and the communication protocols regulating their mutual interactions. All these aspects are visually represented, by adapting the DECLARE graphical language, proposed for the declarative specification of constraint-based business processes. In this paper we discuss the main elements of MSMAS, and show how they can be equipped with a formal, expectation-based semantics, tailored to the \(\mathcal{S}\)CIFF Abductive Logic Programming-based framework. In particular, we show how the MSMAS constructs can be formalized in \(\mathcal{S}\)CIFF, and then exploit this correspondence to specify and verify formal properties over MSMAS models, by leveraging on the \(\mathcal{S}\)CIFF reasoning capabilities.


Business Process Communication Protocol Integrity Constraint Request Message Execution Trace 
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.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: The sciff framework. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 9(4), 29:1–29:43 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldewereld, H., Padget, J., Vasconcelos, W., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Sergeant, P., Staikopoulos, A.: Adaptable, Organization-Aware, Service-Oriented Computing. IEEE Intelligent Systems 25(4), 26–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Communicating open systems. Artificial Intelligence 186, 38–64 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Mascardi, V., Omicini, A., Torroni, P.: Agents, Multi-Agent Systems and Declarative Programming: What, When, Where, Why, Who, How? In: Dovier, A., Pontelli, E. (eds.) GULP. LNCS, vol. 6125, pp. 204–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elakehal, E.E., Padget, J.: Msmas: Modelling self-managing multi agent systems. SCPE: Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience 13(2), 121–137 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elakehal, E.E., Padget, J.: A practical method for developing multi agent systems: APMDMAS. In: Brazier, F.M.T., Nieuwenhuis, K., Pavlin, G., Warnier, M., Badica, C. (eds.) Intelligent Distributed Computing V. SCI, vol. 382, pp. 11–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alberola, J.M., Such, J.M., Botti, V., Espinosa, A., Garcia-Fornes, A.: A scalable multiagent platform for large systems. Computer Science and Information Systems 10(1), 51–77 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghorbani, A., Bots, P., Dignum, V., Dijkema, G.: Maia: a framework for developing agent-based social simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 16(2), 9 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montali, M. (ed.): Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess. ACM Trans. Web 4(1), 3:1–3:62 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montali, M., Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Alberti, M., Lamma, E.: Abductive logic programming as an effective technology for the static verification of declarative business processes. Fundamenta Informaticae 102(3-4), 325–361 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M.: Decserflow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Leymann, F., et al. (eds.) The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures, Dagstuhl, Germany, vol. 06291, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Organisational rules as an abstraction for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emad Eldeen Elakehal
    • 1
  • Marco Montali
    • 2
  • Julian Padget
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.KRDB Research Centre for Knowledge and DataFree University of BozenBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations