Design by Contract Deontic Design Language for Multiagent Systems

  • Christophe Garion
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3913)


Design by contract is a well known theory that views software construction as based on contracts between clients (callers) and suppliers (routines), relying on mutual obligations and benefits made explicit by assertions. However, there is a gap between this theory and software engineering concepts and tools. For example, dealing with contract violations is realized by exception handlers, whereas it has been observed in the area of deontic logic in computer science that violations and exceptions are distinct concepts that should not be confused. To bridge this gap, we propose a software design language based on temporal deontic logic. Moreover, we show how preferences over the possible outcomes of a supplier can be added. We also discuss the relation between the normative stance toward systems implicit in the design by contract approach and the intentional or BDI stance popular in agent theory.


Multiagent System Design Language Deontic Logic Mutual Obligation Intentional Stance 
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.
    Meyer, B.: Design by contract. In: Mandrioli, D., Meyer, B. (eds.) Advances in Object-Oriented Software Engineering, pp. 1–50. Prentice-Hall, New York, London (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. IEEE Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyer, B.: Systematic concurrent object-oriented programming. Communication of the ACM 36(9), 56–80 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyer, J., Wieringa, R.: Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    von Wright, G.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wieringa, R., Meyer, J.: Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview. In: Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pp. 17–40. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Subrahmanian, V., Pick, G.: Heterogeneous active agents, I: Semantics. Artificial Intelligence 108, 179–255 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 428–447 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyer, B.: Invitation to Eiffel. Technical Report TR-EI-67/IV, Interactive Software Engineering (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dignum, F.: Autonomous agents with norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1), 69–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krogh, C., Herrestad, H.: Hohfeld in cyberspace and other applications of normative reasoning in agent technology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1), 81–96 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan, Y., Thoen, W.: Modeling directed obligations and permissions in trade contracts. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Hawaian International Conference on System Sciences (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.: BDIOCTL: Properties of obligation in agent specification languages. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2003, pp. 1389–1390 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jamroga, W., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: On obligations and abilities. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS, vol. 3065, pp. 165–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shoham, Y.: Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence 60, 51–92 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R., Hoos, H., Poole, D.: Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statement. In: Laskey, K., Prade, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 71–80. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 21, 135–191 (2005)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Broersen, J.: Modal Action Logics for Reasoning about Reactive Systems. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brandom, R.: Making it explicit. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rousseau, J.: The social contract (1762),
  23. 23.
    Stark, E.W.: A proof technique for rely/guarantee properties. In: Maheshwari, S.N. (ed.) FSTTCS 1985. LNCS, vol. 206, pp. 369–391. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Contracts as legal institutions in organizations of autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 948–955 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe Garion
    • 1
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 2
  1. 1.SUPAEROToulouseFrance
  2. 2.University of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations