Advertisement

A Generalized Commitment Machine for 2CL Protocols and Its Implementation

  • Matteo Baldoni
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Federico Capuzzimati
  • Elisa Marengo
  • Viviana Patti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7784)

Abstract

This work proposes an operational semantics for the commitment protocol language 2CL. This semantics relies on an extension of Singh’s Generalized Commitment Machine, that we named 2CL-Generalized Commitment Machines. The 2CL-Generalized Commitment Machine was implemented in Prolog by extending Winikoff, Liu and Harland’s implementation. The implementation is equipped with a graphical tool that allows the analyst to explore all the possible executions, showing both commitment and constraint violations, and thus helping the analyst as well as the protocol designer to identify the risks the interaction could encounter. The implementation is part of an Eclipse plug-in which supports 2CL-protocol design and analysis.

Keywords

Commitment protocols constraints among commitments commitment machine commitment machine implementation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C.: Some Thoughts about Commitment Protocols (Position Paper). In: Baldoni, M., Dennis, L., Mascardi, V., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) DALT 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7784, pp. 190–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E.: Behavior-Oriented Commitment-based Protocols. In: Proc. of ECAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp. 137–142. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., Patti, V.: Constitutive and Regulative Specifications of Commitment Protocols: a Decoupled Approach. ACM Trans. on Int. Sys. and Tech., Spec. Iss. on Agent Communication 4(2) (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., Patti, V.: Grafting Regulations into Business Protocols: Supporting the Analysis of Risks of Violation. In: Antón, A., Baumer, D., Breaux, T., Karagiannis, D. (eds.) Forth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW 2011), Held in Conjunction with the 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Trento, Italy, August 30, pp. 50–59. IEEE Xplore (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Commitment Tracking via the Reactive Event Calculus. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI, Pasadena, California, USA, pp. 91–96 (July 2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Constitutive Interoperability. In: Padgham, L., Parkes, D.C., Müller, J., Parsons, S. (eds.) Proc. of 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, vol. 2, pp. 797–804. IFAAMAS (May 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Dssouli, R.: Verifiable Semantic Model for Agent Interactions Using Social Commitments. In: Dastani, M., El Fallah Segrouchni, A., Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) LADS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6039, pp. 128–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Dssouli, R.: Symbolic Model Checking Commitment Protocols Using Reduction. In: Omicini, A., Sardina, S., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) DALT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6619, pp. 185–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and Modal Logic, vol. B. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Defining Interaction Protocols using a Commitment-based Agent Communication Language. In: Rosenschein, J.S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yokoo, M. (eds.) Proc. of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 520–527. ACM (July 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: A Commitment-Based Approach To Agent Communication. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(9-10), 853–866 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Schwind, C.: Specifying and Verifying Interaction Protocols in a Temporal Action Logic. Journal of Applied Logic 5(2), 214–234 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.: On the Characterization of Law and Computer Systems: the Normative Systems Perspective, pp. 275–307. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mallya, A.U., Singh, M.P.: Modeling Exceptions via Commitment Protocols. In: Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Koenig, S., Kraus, S., Singh, M.P., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) AAMAS, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 122–129. ACM (July 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marengo, E.: 2CL Protocols: Interaction Patterns Specification in Commitment Protocols. PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Torino, Research Doctorate in Science and High Technology, Specialization in Computer Science (October 2012), http://www.di.unito.it/~emarengo/Thesis.pdf
  17. 17.
    Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A.K., Patti, V., Singh, M.P.: Commitments with Regulations: Reasoning about Safety and Control in REGULA. In: Sonenberg, L., Stone, P., Tumer, K., Yolum, P. (eds.) AAMAS, Taipei, Taiwan, vol. 1–3, pp. 467–474. IFAAMAS (May 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Searle, J.R.: The construction of social reality. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh, M.P.: An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh, M.P.: Formalizing Communication Protocols for Multiagent Systems. In: Veloso, M.M. (ed.) IJCAI, Hyderabad, India, pp. 1519–1524. AAAI Press (January 2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss, G. (ed.): Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. The MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winikoff, M., Liu, W., Harland, J.: Enhancing Commitment Machines. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 198–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Designing and Executing Protocols Using the Event Calculus. In: Agents, pp. 27–28. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Commitment Machines. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Baldoni
    • 1
  • Cristina Baroglio
    • 1
  • Federico Capuzzimati
    • 1
  • Elisa Marengo
    • 1
  • Viviana Patti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations