Advertisement

Monitoring Directed Obligations with Flexible Deadlines: A Rule-Based Approach

  • Henrique Lopes Cardoso
  • Eugénio Oliveira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5948)

Abstract

Real-world business relationships have an essentially cooperative nature. However, when modeling contractual norms using normative multi-agent systems, it is typical to give norms a strict and domain independent semantics. We argue that in B2B contract enactment cooperation should be taken into account when modeling contractual commitments through obligations. We introduce an approach to model such commitments based on directed obligations with time windows. Our proposal is based on authorizations granted at specific states of an obligation lifecycle model, made possible by handling deadlines in a flexible way. We formalize such obligations using linear temporal logic and provide an implementation to their semantics using a set of monitoring rules employed in a forward-chaining inference engine. We show, through experimentation, the correctness of the obtained monitoring tool in different contract enactment situations.

Keywords

Multiagent System Linear Temporal Logic Normative Environment United Nation Convention Institutional Rule 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Masten, S.E.: Contractual choice. In: Bouckaert, B., De Geest, G. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Volume Volume III: The Regulation of Contracts, pp. 25–45. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arcos, J.L., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Environment engineering for multiagent systems. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18(2), 191–204 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10(1), 1:1–1:42 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions. In: Padgham, P., Müller, P. (eds.) 7th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, pp. 1481–1484 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., Oliveira, E.: Electronic institutions for b2b: Dynamic normative environments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1), 107–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Modgil, S., Faci, N., Meneguzzi, F., Oren, N., Miles, S., Luck, M.: A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In: Decker, S., Sierra, C. (eds.) Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 153–160 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    UNCITRAL: United nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods, cisg (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.J.C.: Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., Oliveira, E.: A context-based institutional normative environment. In: Hubner, J., Matson, E., Boissier, O., Dignum, V. (eds.) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IV. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5428, pp. 140–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ryu, Y.U.: Relativized deontic modalities for contractual obligations in formal business communication. In: 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA, vol. 4, pp. 485–493 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tan, Y.H., Thoen, W.: Modeling directed obligations and permissions in trade contracts. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 5. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., Oliveira, E.: Directed deadline obligations in agent-based business contracts. In: Artikis, A., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) AAMAS 2009 Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in agent systems (COIN), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 77–92 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: Leeuwen, J.v. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Formal Models and Sematics, vol. B, pp. 995–1072. North-Holland Pub. Co./MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrestad, H., Krogh, C.: Obligations directed from bearers to counterparties. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, College Park, Maryland, United States, pp. 210–218. ACM, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C., Williams, M.A. (eds.) Ninth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 255–266. AAAI Press, Whistler (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman-Hill, E.: Jess in Action. Manning Publications Co. (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, F.: Modelling electronic organizations. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2691, pp. 584–593. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.L.: On the formal specifications of electronic institutions. In: Dignum, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) Agent-mediated Electronic commerce: The European AgentLink Perspective. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 126–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., Oliveira, E.: Norm defeasibility in an institutional normative framework. In: Proceedings of The 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008), Patras, Greece, pp. 468–472. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sallé, M.: Electronic contract framework for contractual agents. In: Cohen, R., Spencer, B. (eds.) Canadian AI 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2338, pp. 349–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrique Lopes Cardoso
    • 1
  • Eugénio Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.LIACC, DEI / Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations