Organisational Reasoning Agents

  • Olivier Boissier
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)


From an agent architecture perspective and analysing the reasoning capabilities of agents with respect to organisations, different cases may be considered: agents may or may not have an explicit representation of the organisation, and they may or may not be able to reason about it. Organisational reasoning agents have the capability to represent the organisation and are able about reason on it. In this chapter, we will discuss the main features of this kind of agents and which are the fundamental mechanisms for reasoning about organisations. We will also describe some approaches proposed in the literature related to how agents can take decisions on their participation in an organisation.


Observable Property Social Commitment Dependence Network Cognitive Element Organisational Reasoning 
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.


  1. Boella, G., J. Odell, L. van der Torre, and H. Verhagen, H. 2005. Roles, an interdisciplinary perspective, papers from the 2005 AAAI fall symposium. Technical Report FS-05-08. Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  2. Boissier, O. 2001. Modèles et architectures d’agents. In Principes et architectures des systèmes multi-agents, ed. J.P. Briot and Y. Demazeau, 71–107. Paris: IC2, HERMES.Google Scholar
  3. Boissier, O., C. Carabelea, C. Castelfranchi, J. Sabater-Mir, and L. Tummolini. 2005. The dialectics between an individual and his role. In Roles, an interdisciplinary perspective, papers from the 2005 AAAI fall symposium, vol. Technical report FS-05-08, ed. G. Boella, J. Odell, L. van der Torre, and H. Verhagen, 13–18. Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  4. Boissier, O., J.F. Hübner, and J.S.A. Sichman. 2007. Organization oriented programming: From closed to open organizations. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on engineering societies in the agents world VII. ESAW’06, 86–105. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bordini, R., J. Hübner, M. Wooldridge. 2007. Programming multi-agent systems in agentSpeak using jason. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Broersen, J., M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, Z. Huang, and L.W.N. van der Torre. 2001. The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents, AGENTS’01, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 9–16. ACM: New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Broersen, J., M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre. 2002. Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3–4): 428–447.Google Scholar
  8. Carabelea, C., O. Boissier, and C. Castelfranchi. 2005. Using social power to enable agents to reason about being part of a group. In Proceedings of 5th international workshop on engineering societies in the agents world (ESAW’04), LNCS, vol. 3451, 166–177. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Castelfranchi, C. 2002. The social nature of information and the role of trust. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 11(3): 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castelfranchi, C. 2005. Formalising the informal? Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 1–46.Google Scholar
  11. Castelfranchi, C., and R. Falcone. 1998. Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In Proceedings of the third international conference on multiagent systems, ICMAS 1998, 3–7 July 1998, IEEE Computer Society, ed. Y. Demazeau, 72–79. Paris: France.Google Scholar
  12. Castelfranchi, C., F. Dignum, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur. 2000. Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture. In 6th International workshop on intelligent agents VI, agent theories, architectures, and languages (ATAL’99), LNCS, vol. 1757, 364–378. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Clavel, M., S. Eker, P. Lincloln, and J. Meseguer. 1996. Principles of maude. In Proceedings first international workshop on rewriting logic and its applications. ENTC, vol. 4, 65–89. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Corkill, D., E. Durfee, V. Lesser, H. Zafar, and C. Zhang. 2011. Organizationally adept agents. In 12th international workshop on coordination, organization, institutions and norms in agent systems (COIN@AAMAS 2011), Taipei, 15–30.Google Scholar
  15. Coutinho, L.R., J.S. Sichman, and O. Boissier. 2009. Handbook of research on multi-agent systems: Semantics and dynamics of organizational models, chap. Modelling dimensions for agent organizations, 18–50. Hershey: Information Science Reference Publisher.Google Scholar
  16. Criado, N., E. Argente, P. Noriega, V.J. Botti. 2010. Towards a normative bdi architecture for norm compliance. In Proceedings of 11th international workshop on coordination, organization, institutions and norms in multi-agent systems (COIN at MALLOW2010), Lyon.Google Scholar
  17. Dastani, M., V. Dignum, and F. Dignum. 2003. Role-assignment in open agent societies. In Proceedings of the second international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’03). Melbourne: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Dastani, M., M.B.V. Riemsdijk, and J. Hulstijn. 2004. Enacting and deacting roles in agent programming. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE), vol. 3382, 189–204. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Dignum, V. 2004. A model for organizational interaction: Based on agents, founded in logic. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Dignum, F., V. Dignum, J. Thangarajah, L. Padgham, and M. Winikoff. 2008. Open agent systems? In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE’07), LNCS, vol. 4951, 73–87. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hannoun, M., J.S. Sichman, O. Boissier, and C. Sayettat. 1998. Dependence relation between roles in a multi-agent system: Towards the detection of inconsistencies in organization. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on multi-agent systems and agent-based simulation, LNAI, vol. 1534, ed. J.s. Sichman, R. Conte, N. Gilbert 169–182. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Hübner, J.F. 2003. Um Modelo de Reorganizacao de Sistemas multiagentes. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Escola Politecnica.Google Scholar
  23. Hübner, J.F., J.S. Sichman, and O. Boissier. 2007. Developing organised multi-agent systems using the MOISE+ model: Programming issues at the system and agent levels. Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 1(3/4): 370–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hübner, J.F., O. Boissier, R. Kitio, and A. Ricci. 2010. Instrumenting multi-agent organisations with organisational artifacts and agents: “giving the organisational power back to the agents”. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 20(3): 369–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kollingbaum, M.J., and T.J. Norman. 2003. Noa – a normative agent architecture. In IJCAI, ed. G. Gottlob and T. Walsh, pp. 1465–1466. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  26. Meneguzzi, F., and M. Luck. 2009. Norm-based behaviour modification in BDI agents. In Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’09), Budapest, 177–184.Google Scholar
  27. Meneguzzi, F., N. Oren, and W. Vasconcelos. 2010. Using constraints for norm-aware BDI agents. In The fourth annual conference of the international technology alliance, London.Google Scholar
  28. Panagiotidi, S., and J. Vázquez-Salceda. 2011. Norm-aware planning: Semantics and implementation. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, vol. 03, 33–36. Los Alamitos: IEEE.Google Scholar
  29. Sabater, J. 2004. Evaluating the regret system. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(9–10): 797–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sichman, J.S., R. Conte, C. Castelfranchi, and Y. Demazeau. 1994. A social reasoning mechanism based on dependence networks. In: ECAI, Amsterdam, 188–192.Google Scholar
  31. van Riemsdijk, M.B., V. Dignum, C.M. Jonker, and H. Aldewereld. 2011. Programming role enactment through reflection. In: 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (WI-IAT’11), vol. 2, 133–140. Los Alamitos: IEEE.Google Scholar
  32. van Riemsdijk, M.B., K.V. Hindriks, and C.M. Jonker. 2009. Programming organization-aware agents: A research agenda. In Proceedings of the tenth international workshop on engineering societies in the agents’ world (ESAW’09), LNAI, vol. 5881, 98–112. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Vazquez-Salceda, J. 2004. The role of norms and electronic institutions in multi-agent systems. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technology, Birkh-user Verlag AG, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FAYOL-EMSE, LSTISaint-EtienneFrance
  2. 2.Electrical EngineeringMathematics and Computer Science (EEMCS)DelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations