Engineering Agent Conversations with the DIALOG Framework

  • Fernando Alonso
  • Rafael Fernández
  • Sonia Frutos
  • Javier Soriano
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4196)


This paper presents the rationale behind DIALOG: a formal framework for interaction protocol (IP) modeling that considers all the stages of a protocol engineering process, i.e. the design, specification, validation, implementation and management of IPs. DIALOG is organized into three views. The modeling view allows visual IP design. The specification view automatically outputs, from the design, the syntactic specification of the IPs in a declarative-type language called ACSL. This improves IP publication, localization and communication on the Web, as well as IP machine learning by agents. Finally, the implementation view provides a formal structural operational semantics (SOS) for the ACSL language. The paper focuses on the developed SOS, and shows how this semantics allows protocol property verification and eases automatic rule-based code generation from an ACSL specification for the purpose of simulating IP code execution at design time, as well as improving and assuring correct IP compliance at run time.


Production Rule Operational Semantic Formal Semantic Abstract Syntax Conversational State 
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.
    Finin, T., Labrou, Y., Mayfield, J.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Bradshaw, J.M. (ed.) Software Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA ACL message representation in string specification (2000),
  3. 3.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Desiderata for Agent Argumentation Protocols. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greaves, M., Holmback, H., Bradshaw, J.: What is a conversation policy? In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA Interaction protocol Library Specification. FIPA (2001),
  6. 6.
    Hanachi, C., Sibertin-blanc, C.: Protocol Moderators as Active Middle-Agents in Multi-Agent Systems. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 8, pp. 131–164. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.): Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS (State-of-the-Art Survery), vol. 1916. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gutnik, G., Kaminka, G.A.: Representing Conversations for Scalable Overhearing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 25, 349–387 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Odell, J., et al.: Representing agent interaction protocols in UML. In: Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alonso, F., Frutos, S., López, G., Soriano, J.: A Formal Framework for Interaction Protocol Engineering. In: Pěchouček, M., Petta, P., Varga, L.Z. (eds.) CEEMAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3690, pp. 21–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soriano, J., Alonso, F., López, G.: A Formal Specification Language for Agent Conversations. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2691, 214 pages. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DIALOG Project Web Site. Computer Networks & Web Technologies Lab., available at:
  13. 13.
    Plotkin, G.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19. Aarhus University, Computer Science Department, Denmark (1981)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hennessy, M.: The Semantics of Programming Languages: An Introduction Using Structured Operational Semantics. Wiley, Chichester (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Eijk, R., de Boer, F., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-C.: Operational Semantics for Agent Communication Languages. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 80–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koning, J., Oudeyer, P.: Introduction to POS: Protocol Operational Semantics. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 10(2), 101–123 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haddadi, A.: Communication and Cooperation in Agent Systems: A Pragmatic Theory. LNCS, vol. 1056. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Alonso
    • 1
  • Rafael Fernández
    • 1
  • Sonia Frutos
    • 1
  • Javier Soriano
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversidad Politécnica de MadridBoadilla del Monte, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations