Agreement Technologies: A Computing Perspective
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.
KeywordsSoftware Component Software Agent Reputation Model Software Entity Normative Context
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.
- Andrighetto, G., G. Governatori, P. Noriega, and L. van der Torre. 2012. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 12111: Normative Multi-Agent Systems. http://www.dagstuhl.de/12111.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2012.10.008.
- 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