Performative Patterns for Designing Verifiable ACLs
When people hear two actors reciting a conversation in a poem, they become attuned to the kinds of sounds that they are producing, which may not be apparent in the printed text of the poem. This result depends on certain habitual patterns of how people read or how things should be read in a performance. Performative patterns suggest certain kinds of rhythmic possibilities, time, timbre and intonation, which are not written on the page. Although their scope is quite different we claim that agents’ conversations are subject to similar principles. In the same way agents’ conversations are not completely specified by the logical description of the involved performatives and rules governing speech act interaction are needed to guarantee a reproducible and thus verifiable behaviour. In this paper we present a set of performative patterns for ACLs which specify how performatives should be executed in a concurrent and reactive way with respect to a given logical semantics. We provide a classification of the KQML and FIPA performatives in these patterns and we show how several properties of Multi-Agent Systems can be inferred and verified if an ACL adopt this approach.
KeywordsMultiagent System Logical Description Success Condition Logical Semantic Crash Failure
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Agliati, A., Vescovo, A., Anolli, L.: Conversation patterns in Icelandic and Italian people: Similarities and differences in rhythm and accomodation. In: Anolli, L., et al. (eds.) The hidden structure of interaction. From neurons to culture patterns, pp. 223–236. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
- 2.Labrou, Y.: Semantics for an Agent Communication Language. PhD thesis, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department (CSEE), University of Maryland Graduate School (1997)Google Scholar
- 4.Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents: FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification, Document number: SC00037J, document status: standard (2002)Google Scholar
- 6.Dragoni, N., Gaspari, M.: Crash Failure Detection in Asynchronous Agent Communication Languages. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (to appear, 2006), doi:10.1007/s10458-006-0006-yGoogle Scholar
- 7.Dragoni, N., Gaspari, M., Guidi, D.: A Reasoning Infrastructure to Support Cooperation of Intelligent Agents on the Semantic Grid. International Journal of Applied Intelligence 25, 159–180 (in press, 2006)Google Scholar
- 11.Finin, T., Labrou, Y., Mayfield, J.: KQML as an Agent Communication Language. In: Software Agents, pp. 291–316. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
- 12.Fan, X., Yen, J.: Conversation Pattern-based Anticipation of Teammates? Information Needs Via Overhearing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC Intelligent Agent Technology conference (IAT 2005), pp. 316–322. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Rovatsos, M., Fischer, F., Weiss, G.: An integrated framework for adaptive reasoning about conversation patterns. In: AAMAS 2005: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1123–1124. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Stergiou, C., Arys, G., Wooldridge, M.: A policy based framework for agents: on the specification of an agent policy language including roles, relationships, conversation patterns and co-operation patterns. In: AAMAS 2003: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1126–1127. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar