Advertisement

Running Contracts with Defeasible Commitment

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4031)

Abstract

Real life contracts imply commitments which are active during their running window, with effects on both normal runs as well as in the case of exceptions. We have defined defeasible commitment machines (DCMs) to provide more flexibility. As an extension to the task dependency model for the supply chain we propose the commitment dependency network (CDN) to monitor contracts between members of the supply chain. The workings of the DCMs in the CDN is shown by a simple scenario with supplier, producer, and consumer.

Keywords

Multi-agent systems Autonomous agents Internet applications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Walsh, W., Wellman, E.: Decentralized supply chain formation: A market protocol and competitive equilibrium analysis. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 19, 513–567 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Agreeing on defeasible commitments. In: Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies, Hakodate, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In: 10th International Conference on Artificial Inteligence and Law, Bologna, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Nonmonotonic commitment machines. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2922, pp. 183–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Automating the dispute resolution in a task dependency network. In: Skowron, A. (ed.) Intelligent Agent Technology, Compiegne, France, pp. 365–371 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mallya, A.U., Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2922, pp. 166–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wan, F., Singh, M.: Formalizing and achieving multiparty agreements via commitments. In: 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 770–777. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winikoff, M., Liu, W., Harland, J.: Enhancing commitment machines. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3476, pp. 198–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mallya, A.U., Singh, M.P.: Modeling exceptions via commitment protocols. In: 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 122–129. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bibel, L.W.: AI and the conquest of complexity in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12, 159–180 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Craswell, R.: Contract law: General theories. In: Bouckaert, B., Geest, G.D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. The Regulation of Contracts, Cheltenham, vol. III, pp. 1–24 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grosof, B.: Representing E-Commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3, 2–20 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnical University of Cluj-NapocaCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations