Advertisement

Relating Goal and Commitment Semantics

  • Pankaj R. Telang
  • Munindar P. Singh
  • Neil Yorke-Smith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7217)

Abstract

Whereas commitments capture how an agent relates with another agent, (private) goals describe states of the world that an agent is motivated to bring about. Researchers have observed that goals and commitments are complementary, but have not yet developed a combined operational semantics for them. This paper makes steps towards such a semantics by relating the respective lifecycles of goals and commitments. We study how the the concepts cohere for one agent and how they engender cooperation between agents. We illustrate our approach via a real-world scenario in the domain of aerospace aftermarket services. We state how our semantics yields important desirable properties, including convergence of the configurations of cooperating agents, thereby delineating some theoretically well-founded yet practical modes of cooperation in a multiagent system.

Keywords

Coherent State Multiagent System Operational Semantic Success Condition Front Burner 
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.
    Avali, V.R., Huhns, M.N.: Commitment-Based Multiagent Decision Making. In: Klusch, M., Pěchouček, M., Polleres, A. (eds.) CIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5180, pp. 249–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A.: Representing Long-Term and Interest BDI Goals. In: Braubach, L., Briot, J.-P., Thangarajah, J. (eds.) ProMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5919, pp. 201–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chopra, A.K., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Reasoning about agents and protocols via goals and commitments. In: Proc. AAMAS, pp. 457–464 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalpiaz, F., Chopra, A.K., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Adaptation in Open Systems: Giving Interaction Its Rightful Place. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolution of cross-organizational business processes. ACM Trans. Software Engineering and Methodology 19(2), 6:1–6:45 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grosz, B., Kraus, S.: Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelliegence 86(2), 269–357 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hindriks, K.V., van der Hoek, W., van Riemsdijk, M.B.: Agent programming with temporally extended goals. In: Proc. AAMAS, pp. 137–144 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lesser, V., Decker, K., Wagner, T., Carver, N., Garvey, A., Horling, B., Neiman, D., Podorozhny, R., NagendraPrasad, M., Raja, A., Vincent, R., Xuan, P., Zhang, X.: Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS Domain-Independent Coordination Framework. J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 9(1), 87–143 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Winikoff, M.: Goals in agent systems. In: Proc. AAMAS, pp. 713–720 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. AI and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P.: Enhancing Tropos with Commitments. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 417–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P.: Specifying and verifying cross-organizational business models. IEEE Trans. Services Comput. 4 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P., Yorke-Smith, N.: A coupled operational semantics for goals and commitments (2012), working paperGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Morley, D., Yorke-Smith, N.: Operational Behaviour for Executing, Suspending, and Aborting Goals in BDI Agent Systems. In: Omicini, A., Sardina, S., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) DALT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6619, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Aart, C.J., Chábera, J., Dehn, M., Jakob, M., Nast-Kolb, K., Smulders, J.L.C.F., Storms, P.P.A., Holt, C., Smith, M.: Use case outline and requirements. Deliverable D6.1, IST CONTRACT Project (2007), http://tinyurl.com/6adejz
  16. 16.
    Winikoff, M.: Implementing commitment-based interactions. In: Proc. AAMAS, pp. 873–880 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proc. KR, pp. 470–481 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winikoff, M., Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B.: A unified interaction-aware goal framework. In: Proc. ECAI, pp. 1033–1034 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pankaj R. Telang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Munindar P. Singh
    • 2
  • Neil Yorke-Smith
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Cisco Systems Inc.USA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Olayan School of BusinessAmerican University of BeirutLebanon
  4. 4.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations