Advertisement

Objective Coordination with Business Artifacts and Social Engagements

  • Matteo BaldoniEmail author
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Federico Capuzzimati
  • Roberto Micalizio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 308)

Abstract

This work studies business artifacts by tackling a limit that we see in the current model, which is: business artifacts are not devised as natural means of coordination in their own right, despite the fact that they have the potential of being natural means of coordination in their own right. Coordination issues are transfered (e.g. by BALSA) to solutions that are already available in the literature on choreography and choreography languages. Instead, we propose to enrich business artifacts with a normative layer that accounts for the social engagements of the parties which interact by using a same business artifact. We explain the advantages, also from a software engineering perspective, and propose an approach that relies on the notion of social commitment.

Keywords

Business artifacts Normative MAS Social commitments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Accountable Trustworthy Organizations and Systems (AThOS) project, funded by Università degli Studi di Torino and Compagnia di San Paolo (CSP 2014). The authors warmly thank the reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments which helped revising the paper.

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F.: Typing multi-agent systems via commitments. In: Dalpiaz, F., Dix, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B. (eds.) EMAS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8758, pp. 388–405. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14484-9_20 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Empowering agent coordination with social engagement. In: Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Riguzzi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9336, pp. 89–101. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24309-2_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Commitment-based agent interaction in JaCaMo+. Fundamenta Informaticae 157, 1–33 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2018-1600. IOS PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: ADOPT JaCaMo: accountability-driven organization programming technique for JaCaMo. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds.) PRIMA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10621, pp. 295–312. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R.: Social continual planning in open multiagent systems: a first study. In: Chen, Q., Torroni, P., Villata, S., Hsu, J., Omicini, A. (eds.) PRIMA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9387, pp. 575–584. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25524-8_40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacharya, K., Caswell, N.S., Kumaran, S., Nigam, A., Wu, F.Y.: Artifact-centered operational modeling: lessons from customer engagements. IBM Syst. J. 46(4), 703–721 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhattacharya, K., Hull, R., Su, J.: A data-centric design methodology for business processes. In: Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling, pp. 503–531. IGI Publishing (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bratman, M.E.: What is intention? In: Cohen, P., Morgan, J., Pollack, M. (eds.) Intensions in Communication, pp. 15–31. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Busi, N., Ciancarini, P., Gorrieri, R., Zavattaro, G.: Coordination models: a guided tour. In: Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F., Klusch, M., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) Coordination of Internet Agents, pp. 6–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04401-8_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M.: Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS, pp. 1–12. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Cupid: commitments in relational algebra. In: Bonet, B., Koenig, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Texas, USA, pp. 2052–2059. AAAI Press, 25–30 January 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohn, D., Richard, H.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Masellis, R., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Montali, M., Tessaris, S.: Add data into business process verification: bridging the gap between theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, California, USA, pp. 1091–1099, 4–9 February 2017Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R.-L. (eds.): Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Omicini, A., Ossowski, S.: Objective versus subjective coordination in the engineering of agent systems. In: Klusch, M., Bergamaschi, S., Edwards, P., Petta, P. (eds.) Intelligent Information Agents. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2586, pp. 179–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36561-3_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M.: Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 17(3), 432–456 (2008). Special Issue on Foundations, Advanced Topics and Industrial Perspectives of Multi-Agent SystemsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Philippsen, M.: A survey of concurrent object-oriented languages. Concurr. Pract. Exp. 12(10), 917–980 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh, M.P.: Information-driven interaction-oriented programming: BSPL, the blindingly simple protocol language. In: 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 491–498 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh, M.P.: NoBPM: supporting interaction-oriented automation via normative specifications of processes (2015). Invited talk, BPMGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P., Yorke-Smith, N.: Relating goal and commitment semantics. In: Dennis, L., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H. (eds.) ProMAS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7217, pp. 22–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31915-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Therborn, G.: Back to norms! on the scope and dynamics of norms and normative action. Curr. Sociol. 50, 863–880 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Viroli, M., Omicini, A., Ricci, A.: Infrastructure for RBAC-MAS: an approach based on agent coordination contexts. Appl. Artif. Intell. 21(4&5), 443–467 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wooldridge, M.J.: Introduction to Multiagent Systems, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yadav, N., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: A tool for defining agent protocols in HAPN: (demonstration). In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS, pp. 1935–1936 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università degli Studi di Torino — Dipartimento di InformaticaTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations