Agreement Technologies: A Computing Perspective

  • Sascha Ossowski
  • Carles Sierra
  • Vicente Botti
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)


In this chapter we analyse the concept of agreement from a Computing perspective. In particular, we argue that the capability of software components to dynamically forge and execute agreements at run-time will become increasingly important, and identify key areas and challenges that need to be addressed in order to advance in this direction. Finally, we introduce the emerging field of Agreement Technologies for the construction of large-scale open distributed software systems, and identify technologies that are in the sandbox to define, specify and verify such systems.


Software Component Software Agent Reputation Model Software Entity Normative Context 
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.



The term “Agreement Technologies” was introduced by Michael Wooldridge in conversations at the AAMAS conference in 2004. It was also used by Nicholas R.Jennings as title for a keynote talk given in 2005. Carles Sierra was among the first to give shape to the field by defining five key areas as technological building blocks for AT in 2007.

This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the project “Agreement Technologies” (CONSOLIDER CSD2007-0022, INGENIO 2010). The authors would like to thank Matteo Vasirani for inspiring discussions on the challenges of extending Agreement Technologies to mixed societies of human and software agents.


  1. Andrighetto, G., G. Governatori, P. Noriega, and L. van der Torre. 2012. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 12111: Normative Multi-Agent Systems.
  2. Arcos, J.L., M. Esteva, P. Noriega, J.A. Rodríguez, and C. Sierra. 2005. Engineering open environments with electronic institutions. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18(2): 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fernández, A., and S. Ossowski. 2011. A multiagent approach to the dynamic enactment of semantic transportation services. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 12(2): 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Franklin, S., and A. Graesser. 1997. Is it an agent, or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In Intelligent agents III, agent theories, architectures, and languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1193, 21–35. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. García-Fornes, A., J. Hübner, A. Omicini, J.A. Rodríguez-Aguilar, and V. Botti. 2011. Infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems for the new generation of distributed systems. Engineering Applications of AI 24(7): 1095–1097.Google Scholar
  6. Hermenegildo, M., E. Albert, P. López-García, and G. Puebla. 2005. Abstraction carrying code and resource-awareness. In Principle and practice of declarative programming (PPDP-2005), 1–11. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Jennings, N., P. Faratin, A. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and M. Wooldridge. 2001. Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2): 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jøsang, A., R. Ismail, and C. Boyd. 2007. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems 43(2): 618–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kalfoglou, Y., and M. Schorlemmer. 2003. IF-Map – an ontology-mapping method based on information-flow theory. In Journal on Data Semantics I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. S. Spaccapietra, S. March, and K. Aberer, vol. 2800, 98–127. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Ko, R.K.L., S.S.G. Lee, and E.W. Lee. 2009. Business process management (bpm) standards: A survey. Business Process Management Journal 15(5): 744–791.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kraus, S. 1997. Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments. Artificial Intelligence 94(1–2): 79–97.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Necula, G.C., and P. Lee. 1997. Proof-carrying code. In 24th symposium on principles of programming languages (POPL-1997), 106–109, New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Omicini, A., S. Ossowski, and A. Ricci. 2004. Coordination infrastructures in the engineering of multiagent systems. In Methodologies and software engineering for agent systems – the agent-oriented software engineering handbook, 273–296. Boston/London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Ossowski, S., and R. Menezes. 2006. On coordination and its significance to distributed and multi-agent systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 18(4): 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ossowski, S. 2008. Coordination in multi-agent systems – towards a technology of agreement. In Multiagent system technologies (MATES-2008). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5244, 2–12. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Ramchurn, S., P. Vytelingum, A. Rogers, and N. Jennings. 2012. Putting the “Smarts” into the smart grid: A grand challenge for artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM 55(4), 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sierra, C., and J. Debenham. 2006. Trust and honour in information-based agency. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems, 1225–1232. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Sierra, C., V. Botti, and S. Ossowski. 2011. Agreement computing. Künstliche Intelligenz 25(1): 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vasirani, M., and S. Ossowski. 2012. A market-inspired approach for intersection management in urban road traffic networks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 43: 621–659.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Vasirani, M., and S. Ossowski. 2013. A proportional share allocation mechanism for coordination of plug-in electric vehicle charging. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence.
  21. Wooldridge, M., and N. Jennings. 1995. Intelligent agents – theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2): 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wooldridge, M. 1997. Agents as a rorschach test: A response to franklin and graesser. In Intelligent agents III, agent theories, architectures, and languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1193, 47–48. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CETINIAUniversity Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain
  2. 2.IIIA – CSICBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y ComputaciónUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations