Producing Compliant Interactions: Conformance, Coverage, and Interoperability

  • Amit K. Chopra
  • Munindar P. Singh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4327)


Agents in an open system interact with each other based on (typically, published) protocols. An agent may, however, deviate from the protocol because of its internal policies. Such deviations pose certain challenges: (1) the agent might no longer be conformant with the protocol—how do we determine if the agent is conformant? (2) the agent may no longer be able to interoperate with other agents—how do we determine if two agents are interoperable? (3) the agent may not be able to produce some protocol computations; in other words, it may not cover the protocol—how we determine if an agent covers a protocol?

We formalize the notions of conformance, coverage and interoperability. A distinctive feature of our formalization is that the three are orthogonal to each other. Conformance and coverage are based on the semantics of runs (a run being a sequence of states), whereas interoperability among agents is based upon the traditional idea of blocking. We present a number of examples to comprehensively illustrate the orthogonality of conformance, coverage, and interoperability.

Compliance is a property of an agent’s execution whereas conformance is a property of the agent’s design. In order to produce only compliant executions, first and foremost the agent must be conformant; second, it must also be able to interoperate with other agents.


Transition System Multiagent System Customer Agent Commitment Protocol Causal Product 
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.
    Alberti, M., Daolio, D., Torroni, P., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Specification and verification of agent interaction protocols in a logic-based system. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2004), pp. 72–78 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Verification of protocol conformance and agent interoperability. In: Toni, F., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3900, pp. 265–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Contextualization of commitment protocols. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., Toni, F.: Protocol conformance for logic-based agents. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 679–684 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1-2), 49–104 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mallya, A.U., Singh, M.P.: An algebra for commitment protocols. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems special issue on Agent Communication (JAAMAS) (April 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.P.: Verifying compliance with commitment protocols: Enabling open Web-based multiagent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3), 217–236 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit K. Chopra
    • 1
  • Munindar P. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.North Carolina State University 

Personalised recommendations