Modularity and Composition in Propositional Statecharts

  • H. R. Dunn-Davies
  • R. J. Cunningham
  • S. Paurobally
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4045)


Propositional Statecharts, described in [3], are a variation of David Harel’s Statechart formalism [6] intended to enable both diagrammatic description of an agent interaction protocol, and interpretation as a theory in a dynamic logic. Here we provide an informal description of a diagrammatic extension to enable modular representation.


Regular Expression Dynamic Logic Modular Representation Interaction Protocol Informal Description 
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.
    Bauer, B., Muller, J.P., Odell, J.: Agent UML: A Formalism for Specifying Multiagent Software Systems. In: AOSE, pp. 91–104 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cost, R., et al.: Modeling agent conversations with colored petri nets. In: Workshop on Specifying and Implementing Conversation Policies, pp. 59–66 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunn-Davies, H.R., Cunningham, R.J., Paurobally, S.: Propositional Statecharts for Agent Interaction Protocols. ENTCS, vol. 134, pp. 55–75 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Defining Interaction Protocols using a Commitment Based Agent Communication Language. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedl, J.E.F.: Mastering Regular Expressions. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Programming 8, 231–274 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paurobally, S., Cunningham, R.J.: Verification of Protocols for Automated Negotiation. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proceedings of ECAI 2002, pp. 43–47. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sunyé, G., et al.: Refactoring UML Models. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vitteau, B., Huget, M.P.: Modularity in Interaction Protocols. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 291–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. R. Dunn-Davies
    • 1
  • R. J. Cunningham
    • 1
  • S. Paurobally
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial CollegeLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations