Constructing translations between individual vocabularies in multi-agent systems

  • Rogier M. van Eijk
  • Frank S. de Boer
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1480)


In multi-agent systems, different agents usually employ different languages to express their informational and motivational attitudes. During communication processes, the agents should therefore employ some translation mechanism in order to understand the information provided by the other agents. In this paper, we develop a logical framework based on a possible world semantics to model the informational attitudes of agents. The framework covers operations to incorporate newly acquired information, even in case this information is not expressed in the agents' own vocabulary. Finally, we define an abstract programming language for bilateral communication processes in which agents use these operations to build translations between their individual vocabularies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F. Brazier, B. Dunin-Keplicz, N. Jennings, and J. Treur. Formal specification of multi-agent systems: a real-world case. In Proceedings of ICMAS-95, pages 25–32. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. M. van Eijk, F.S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Informationpassing and belief revision in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of ATAL'98, LNCS, Paris, France, 1998. Springer-Verlag. To appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.M. van Eijk, F.S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Systems of communicating agents. In Proceedings of the 13th biennial European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-98), pages 293–297, Brighton, UK, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Finin, D. McKay, R. Fritzson, and R. McEntire. KQML: An Information and Knowledge Exchange Protocol. In Kazuhiro Fuchi and Toshio Yokoi, editors, Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing. Ohmsha and IOS Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Fitting. Basic modal logic. In D.M. Gabbay, Ch.J. Hogger, and J.A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, volume IV, chapter 6. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in flux: Modelling the dynamics of epistemic states. Bradford books, MIT, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Michael R. Genesereth and Richard E. Fikes. Knowledge Interchange Format, Version 3.0 Reference Manual. Technical report Logic-92-1, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Giunchiglia and L. Serafini. Multilanguage Hierarchical Logics (or: How we can do without modal logics). Artificial Intelligence, 64:29–70, 1994.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas R. Gruber. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In N. Guarino and R. Poli, editors, Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Actions that make you change your mind. In A. Laux and H. Wansing, editors, Knowledge and Belief in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence, pages 103–146. Akademie Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Formalising motivational attitudes of agents: On preferences, goals and commitments. In M. Wooldridge, J.P. Müller, and M. Tambe, editors, Intelligent Agents Volume II (ATAL'95), volume 1037 of LNCS, pages 17–32. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.H. Nodine and A. Unruh. Facilitating open communication in agent systems: The infosleuth infrastructure. In Proceedings of ATAL'97, volume 1365 of LNAI, pages 281–295. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Noriega and C. Sierra. Towards layered dialogical agents. In Proceedings of ATAL'96, volume 1193 of LNAI, pages 173–188. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.S. Rao and M.P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandevall, editors, Proceedings of KR'91, pages 473–484, Cambridge, Massachusettes, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Singh, O. Tawakol, and M. Genesereth. A Name-Space Context Graph for Multi-Context, Multi-Agent Systems. In Proceedings of the 1995 AAAI Fall Symposium, Boston, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Steels. Synthesising the origins of language and meaning using co-evolution, self-organisation and level formation. In J. Hurford, C. Knight, and M. Studdert-Kennedy, editors, Evolution of Human Language. Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Wooldridge and N. Jennings. Intelligent agents: theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rogier M. van Eijk
    • 1
  • Frank S. de Boer
    • 1
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
    • 1
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversiteit UtrechtTB UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations