A Semantic and Pragmatic Framework for the Specification of Agent Communication Languages: Motivational Attitudes and Norms

  • Rodrigo Agerri
  • Eduardo Alonso
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3529)


The ability to communicate is one of the most important properties of agents. In an open environment, like the Internet, in which agents are designed in many different ways, it is important to clearly establish the meaning of a standard language for artificial agents. Traditionally, the pragmatics of ACLs take the form of interaction protocols, which only specify the order in which messages occur without taking into account the content of the message, or the role of the agents. We present a unified ACL which attempts to define the ACL semantics and pragmatics within the same framework, including an intentional view of speaker’s meaning and a pragmatic level based on the normative notion of right. The framework is developed by defining a logic with modal and deontic operators grounded in a computational model. The pragmatics takes the form of declarative rules.


Global State Agent Communication Deontic Logic Kripke Structure Social Approach 
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.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an Agent Communication Language. In: Adam, N., Bhargava, B., Yesha, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 1994), Gaithersburg, MD, USA, pp. 456–463. ACM Press, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    FIPA ACL: FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification (2002), http://www.fipa.org/repository/aclspecs.html
  4. 4.
    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: A commitment-based approach to agent communication. Applied Artificial Intelligence an International Journal 18, 853–866 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greaves, M., Holmback, H., Bradshaw, J.: What is a Conversation Policy? In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 1916, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pitt, J., Mamdani, A.: A protocol-based semantics for an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI 1999, Stockholm, pp. 486–491. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 995–1072. North Holland, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a logic of rational agency. Logic Journal of the IGPL 11, 135–159 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kripke, S.: Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophical Fennica XVI, 83–94 (1963)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Communicative actions for artificial agents. In: Bradshaw, J.M. (ed.) Software Agents. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Decision procedures for bdi logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 293–342 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Practical permission: Dependence, power and social commitment. In: Proceedings of 2nd workshop on Practical Reasoning and Rationality, London (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Torre, L., Hulstijn, J., Dastani, M., Broersen, J.: Specifying multiagent organizations. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 243–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.: Deontic interpreted systems. Studia Logica 75 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: A semantic approach for KQML - a general purpose communication language for software agents. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 1994), pp. 447–455 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., Toni, F.: Logic-based agent communication protocols. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 91–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for the analysis of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 128–135 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dignum, F., Kuiper, R.: Combining dynamic deontic logic and temporal logic for the specification of deadlines. In: Sprague, J.R. (ed.) Proceedings of thirtieth HICSS, Hawaii (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kagal, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: A policy language for a pervasive computing environment. In: IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Agerri
    • 1
  • Eduardo Alonso
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Dept. of ComputingCity UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations