DIAGAL: A Generic ACL for Open Systems

  • Philippe Pasquier
  • Mathieu Bergeron
  • Brahim Chaib-draa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3451)


In this paper, we present the latest version of our dialogue games based agent communication language (DIAGAL) which allows the agents to manipulate the public layer of social commitments through dialogue. We show that DIAGAL is complete according to the sequential creation, cancellation, update and discharge of social commitments. We also extend and refine notions of success and satisfaction previously associated with speech-acts to this new dialogical setting. Finally, we explain why DIAGAL is a good candidate for open and heterogeneous MAS development.


MultiAgent System Success Condition Agent Communication Propositional Content Satisfaction Condition 
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.
    FIPA: FIPA ACL message structure specification, foundation for intelligent physical agents (2002),
  2. 2.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: Semantics for an agent communication language. In: Rao, A., Singh, M.P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) ATAL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1365, pp. 209–214. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moulin, B.: The social dimension of interactions in multi-agent systems. In: Wobcke, W., Pagnucco, M., Zhang, C. (eds.) Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1441, p. 109. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh, M.P.: Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 12, 40–47 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dignum, F., Greaves, M.: Issues in agent communication: An introduction. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maudet, N., Chaib-draa, B.: Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols - new trends in agent communication language. Knowledge Engineering 17, 157–179 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., der Torre, L.V.: Negotiation protocols and dialogue games. In: Proceedings of the Belgium/Dutch AI Conference (BNAIC 2000), Kaatsheuvel (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flores, R., Kremer, R.: Bringing coherence to agent conversation. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, pp. 50–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Procceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pasquier, P., Chaib-draa, B.: Engagements, intentions et jeux de dialogue. In: Herzig, A., Chaib-draa, B., Mathieu, P. (eds.) Modèles formels de l’interaction, Actes des Secondes Journées Francophones, Cépaduès, pp. 289–294 (2003) (papier court)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue. Suny Press (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pasquier, P., Flores, R., Chaib-draa, B.: Modelling flexible social commitments and their enforcement. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3451, pp. 139–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark, H.H.: Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communication. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, ICMAS (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chaib-draa, B., Maudet, N., Labrie, M.A.: DIAGAL: A tool for analyzing and modelling commitment-based dialogues between agents. In: Xiang, Y., Chaib-draa, B. (eds.) Canadian AI 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2671, pp. 353–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vanderveken, D.: Meaning and Speech Acts: Principles of Language Use. Cambridge University, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pasquier, P., Andrillon, N., Chaib-draa, B.: An exploration in using cognitive coherence theory to automate BDI agents’ communicational behavior. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 37–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D.: Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, New York (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaib-draa, B., Maudet, N., Labrie, M.A.: Request for action reconsidered as dialogue games based on commitments. In: Workshop on Agent Communication Language, AAMAS 2002 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Pasquier
    • 1
  • Mathieu Bergeron
    • 1
  • Brahim Chaib-draa
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and Software Engineering DepartmentLaval UniversitySainte-FoyCanada

Personalised recommendations