2CL Protocols: Interaction Patterns Speci cation in ...2CL Protocols: Interaction Patterns Speci cation in Commitment Protocols Elisa Marengo Universit a degli Studi di Torino Scuola

2CL Protocols: Interaction Patterns Specification inCommitment Protocols

Elisa Marengo

Universita degli Studi di TorinoScuola di Dottorato in Scienze ed Alta Tecnologia

Dottorato in Informatica

Ph.D. Thesis Defence - Torino, October 19, 2012

Advisor: Prof. Matteo Baldoni - Prof. Cristina BaroglioElisa Marengo (UNITO) 2CL Protocols October 19, 2012 1 / 41

Interaction Protocols

Representation of Complex Systems

Current trends:

Advent of distributed and heterogeneous systems

Moving from monolithic towards component-based approaches

Moving from defining the flow of execution towards definingcoordination among the components

Interaction protocols

are means for achieving the desired coordination among the components

Elisa Marengo (UNITO) 2CL Protocols October 19, 2012 2 / 41


Representation of Complex Systems

Current trends:

Advent of distributed and heterogeneous systems

Moving from monolithic towards component-based approaches

Moving from defining the flow of execution towards definingcoordination among the components

Interaction protocols

are means for achieving the desired coordination among the components





Achieve coordination

Providing all the necessary tools

Accounting for components’ characteristics







Reuse

Improving performances

Decreasing costs







Reuse


Decreasing costs

Applicable to real cases







Reuse


Decreasing costs

Usable

Tools

Methodologies

Supports








Formal Foundation

Reuse


Decreasing costs

Usable

Tools

Methodologies

Supports



Interaction Protocol and MASs

A MAS is an abstraction used to simulate complex systems made ofinteracting parties (agents) where:

the interacting parties are usually conceived as heterogeneous andautonomous;they interact in order to achieve some objectives.

Interaction protocols are means to achieve coordination/cooperationin MASs [Weiss, 1999, Wooldridge, 2002]



How to specify an Interaction Protocol?

By specifying the allowed sequences of actions

Automata

Finite State Machines

Petri Nets

UML Diagrams (Sequence diagrams)

AUML Diagrams (Interaction diagrams)

By specifying only mandatory and forbidden requirements

Expectation-based approaches

Commitment-based approaches



How to specify an Interaction Protocol?

By specifying the allowed sequences of actions

Automata

Finite State Machines

Petri Nets

UML Diagrams (Sequence diagrams)

AUML Diagrams (Interaction diagrams)

By specifying only mandatory and forbidden requirements

Expectation-based approaches

Commitment-based approaches


Interaction Protocols Commitment Protocols

Commitment Protocols

C(x , y , p, q)

In Commitment protocols [Yolum and Singh, 2002]

By performing some actions the agents socially commit to do (orachieve) something

The expectation is that at the end all commitments are satisfied

Characteristics

they respect the agents’ autonomy

they allow agents for flexible behaviours (what rather than how)

they are verifiable

However,

Commitment Protocols do not account for Patterns of Interaction




C(x , y , p, q)




Characteristics



they are verifiable

However,





C(x , y , p, q)




Characteristics



they are verifiable

However,





C(x , y , p, q)




Characteristics



they are verifiable

However,



Interaction Protocols Patterns of Interaction

Patterns of interaction

They can be used for expressing requirements on the evolution of theinteraction (e.g. agreements, norms, rules, conventions...) improvingcoordination

They bring to the same state but...

one may wish to say that only payment followed by shipment is acceptable


Main Contributions

Main Contributions


Interaction and coordina-tion among agents

Main Contributions

2CL Protocols

Extend commitment protocols with the possibility of expressing patterns ofinteraction

The specification is based on Constraints and Commitments:

Commitments: Capture contractual/social relations among the interactingparties

Constraints: Are used to represent patterns of interaction that theinteraction is desired to respect.


· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, E. Marengo, and V. Patti. Constitutive and Regulative Specificationsof Commitment Protocols: a Decoupled Approach. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systemsand Technology, Special Issue on Agent Communication, To appear.· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, and E. Marengo. Behavior-oriented Commitment- based Protocols. InProc. of ECAI 2010.· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, and E. Marengo. Constraints among Commitments: Regulative Spec-ification of Interaction Protocols. In Proc. of AC 2010.

Main Contributions

Main Contributions



TheoreticalFramework

Main Contributions

Main Contributions




Evaluation

Main Contributions

Main Contributions




Adaptation/Grafting

Evaluation

Main Contributions

Main Contributions




Adaptation/Grafting

Protocol Engineering,Design and Analysis

Evaluation

2CL Protocols Specification

Interaction among Agents

A 2CL interaction protocol P is a tuple

Ro: interacting roles

F: set of literals (facts and commitments)

s0: initial state

A: set of protocol actions

Cst: set of constraints defining the patterns of interaction


2CL Protocols Specification Constitutive Specification

Constitutive Specification

X means Y if Cond

The set of actions A, defined on Ro and F, forms the ConstitutiveSpecification [Searle, 1995] of a 2CL protocol

Count-as relation

X is a physical event, Y is a (set of) social event(s), Cond is the conditionunder which X acquires the specified meaning

means captures a count-as relation between physical and socialevents

social events correspond to operations on facts and commitments



Constitutive Specification

X means Y if Cond

The set of actions A, defined on Ro and F, forms the ConstitutiveSpecification [Searle, 1995] of a 2CL protocol

Count-as relation

X is a physical event, Y is a (set of) social event(s), Cond is the conditionunder which X acquires the specified meaning

means captures a count-as relation between physical and socialevents

social events correspond to operations on facts and commitments



Example

Constitutive Specification of CNET

(a) cfp means create(C(i , p, proposal , assigned ∨ send reject))

(b) proposal means create(C(p, i , assigned , solved)) if ¬solved

(c) send refusal means refused task if cfp ∧ ¬solved

(d) send accept means assigned

(e) send reject means release(C(p, i , assigned , solved)) if proposal

(f) send done means solved

(g) failure means cancel(C(p, i , assigned , solved))∧ cancel(C(p, i , solved))


2CL Protocols Specification Constraints Specification

Constraints Specification

dnf1 op dnf2

The set of constraints Cst, defined on Ro and on F, extends the regulativespecification [Searle, 1995] of a commitment protocol.

2CL: the Constraints among Commitments Language

Allows to express patterns as constraints among facts and commitments

dnf1 and dnf2 are disjunctive normal form formulas; op is a 2CLconstraint

It is a declarative language


2CL Protocols Specification Constraints Specification

Constraints Specification

dnf1 op dnf2

The set of constraints Cst, defined on Ro and on F, extends the regulativespecification [Searle, 1995] of a commitment protocol.

2CL: the Constraints among Commitments Language

Allows to express patterns as constraints among facts and commitments

dnf1 and dnf2 are disjunctive normal form formulas; op is a 2CLconstraint

It is a declarative language


2CL Protocols Specification 2CL

The Constraints among Commitments Language

Operator Meaning

RelationOperators

dnf1 correlate dnf2 In an execution where dnf1 occurs, also dnf2 must occurbut there is no temporal relation between the two.

dnf1 not correlate dnf2 If dnf1 occurs in some execution, dnf2 must not occur.

dnf1 co-exist dnf2 It captures the mutual correlation dnf1 correlate dnf2 anddnf2 correlate dnf1.

dnf1 not co-exist dnf2 This captures the mutual exclusion of dnf1 and dnf2:both dnf1 not correlate dnf2 and dnf2 not correlate dnf1hold.

TemporalOperators

dnf1 response dnf2 If dnf1 occurs, dnf2 must hold at least once afterwards(or in the same state). It does not matter if dnf2 alreadyheld before dnf1.

dnf1 not response dnf2 If dnf1 holds, dnf2 cannot hold in the same state or after.

dnf1 before dnf2 dnf2 cannot hold until dnf1 becomes true. Afterwards, itis not necessary that dnf2 becomes true.

dnf1 not before dnf2 In case dnf2 becomes true, dnf1 cannot hold beforehand.

dnf1 cause dnf2 It is the conjunction of response and before relations: dnf1response dnf2 and dnf1 before dnf2.

dnf1 not cause dnf2 It is the conjunction of response and before negative rela-tions: dnf1 not response dnf2 and dnf1 not before dnf2.

StrongSequence

dnf1 premise dnf2 dnf1 must hold in the state immediately preceding onestate in which dnf2 holds.

dnf1 not premise dnf2 dnf1 must never hold in a state that immediately precedesone where dnf2 holds.



Example

Constraints Specification of CNET

(c1) cfp before refused task or C(p, i , assigned , solved)

(c2) C(p, i , assigned , solved) before send reject or assigned

(c3) assigned before solved



Example







Example







2CL Constraints Graphical representation

Declarative Approaches

are accused of being not very intuitive (lowering their usability)[Miller and McGinnis, 2008]

lack of graphical intuitive representations oriented to designers

Graphical convention

It is inspired by Declare [van der Aalst and Pesic, 2006, Montali, 2009]and DCML [Baldoni et al., 2007, Baldoni et al., 2011b] representations

dot represents the “triggering condition”

arrow represents the temporal nature of the constraint

negated operators are crossed by a line


· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, E. Marengo, and V. Patti. Constitutive and Regulative Specificationsof Commitment Protocols: a Decoupled Approach. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systemsand Technology, Special Issue on Agent Communication, To appear.· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, and E. Marengo. Constraints among Commitments: Regulative Spec-ification of Interaction Protocols. In Proc. of AC 2010.


2CL Constraints Graphical representation

Declarative Approaches

are accused of being not very intuitive (lowering their usability)[Miller and McGinnis, 2008]

lack of graphical intuitive representations oriented to designers

Graphical convention

It is inspired by Declare [van der Aalst and Pesic, 2006, Montali, 2009]and DCML [Baldoni et al., 2007, Baldoni et al., 2011b] representations

dot represents the “triggering condition”

arrow represents the temporal nature of the constraint

negated operators are crossed by a line


· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, E. Marengo, and V. Patti. Constitutive and Regulative Specificationsof Commitment Protocols: a Decoupled Approach. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systemsand Technology, Special Issue on Agent Communication, To appear.· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, and E. Marengo. Constraints among Commitments: Regulative Spec-ification of Interaction Protocols. In Proc. of AC 2010.


Graphical representation: Relation Operators

Constraint Representation

Correlationl1 correlate l2 l1 l2

l1 not correlate l2 l1 l2

Co-existencel1 co-exist l2 l1 l2

l1 not co-exist l2 l1 l2



Graphical representation: Temporal Operators

Constraint Representation

Responsel1 response l2 l1 l2

l1 not response l2 l1 l2

Beforel1 before l2 l1 l2

l1 not before l2 l1 l2

Causel1 cause l2 l1 l2

l1 not cause l2 l1 l2l1 l2

Premisel1 premise l2 l1 l2

l1 not premise l2 l1 l2



Graphical representation: Drawing Formulas

Literal representation

l

Conjunction of literals

. . .l1 ln

cf = l1 ∧ . . . ∧ lnDisjunctive normal form formula

lnl1 . . .. . .cfi

dnf = l1 ∨ . . . ∨ cfi ∨ . . . ∨ ln

Exclusive Disjunctive normal form formula

lnl1 . . .. . .cfi

dnf = l1 xor . . . xor cfi xor . . . xor ln



Graph of Constraints: no-flow-in-flow



Graph of Constraints: no-flow-in-flow


2CL Protocols Specification Comparison with other Proposals

Comparison with other Proposals

Current Proposals

Do not account for patterns of interaction [Chopra and Singh, 2008, Chopra, 2009]

Focus on regulative aspects[Chesani et al., 2009, Montali et al., 2010, Torroni et al., 2009]

Patterns are hidden inside actions definitions[Winikoff et al., 2005, Chopra and Singh, 2006, Kafali and Yolum, 2009]

Represent patterns procedurally[Fornara and Colombetti, 2003, Fornara and Colombetti, 2004]

Capture some relations expressed among events[Mallya and Singh, 2006][Singh, 2003, Marengo et al., 2011]


M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, and E. Marengo.Commitment-based Protocols with BehavioralRules and Correctness Properties of MAS. In Post-Proc. of DALT 2010, Revised Selected and InvitedPapers, LNAI 6619.

Main Contributions

Main Contributions



Evaluation

Main Contributions

Main Contributions



Evaluation

Adaptation/Grafting

Evaluation

Evaluation

Case Studies

OECD Guidelines for private data protection

MiFID: Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (investmentservices off-site)


·M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, E. Marengo, and V. Patti. Grafting Regulations into BusinessProtocols: Supporting the Analysis of Risks of Violation. In Proc. of RELAW 2011.· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, E. Marengo, V. Patti, and F. Capuzzimati. Learn the Rulesso you Know How to Break them Properly. In Proc. of WOA 2011.· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, V. Patti, and E. Marengo. Supporting the Analysis of Risksof Violation in Business Protocols: the MiFID Case Study. In Information Systems:Crossroads for Organization, Management, Accounting and Engineering. Springer,2012. Best Track Paper Award.

Evaluation

Grafting of new Regulations

Data Flow Protocol

(a) ask data(b) send data(c) refuse data

OECD Guidelines

(d) periodically verify accuracy(e) check accuracy(f) verify purpose(g) notify owner

Constraints specifying the grafting

(c1) purpose verified −.• sent data(c2) accuracy verified −.• sent data(c3) sent data •−. owner notified(c4) purpose verified −.• refuse data(c5) accuracy verified −.• refuse data


Evaluation


1

start

4

5

verify_purpose !c2

7

check_accuracy !c1

6

check_accuracy verify_purpose

12

13

check_accuracy

15

verify_purpose !c5

16

check_accuracy !c4

verify_purpose

3

notify_owner !c2

8

verify_purpose !c2

10

check_accuracy !c1

notify_owner !c2

9

check_accuracy notify_owner !c1verify_purpose

notify_owner

2

refuse_data !c4 send_data !c2

11

verify_purpose

17

check_accuracy

refuse_data !c5 send_data !c2

14

check_accuracy

send_datarefuse_data

refuse_data !c4 send_data !c1verify_purpose

ask_data

18

periodically_verify_accuracy

ask_data


·M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, E. Marengo, and V. Patti. Grafting Regulations into BusinessProtocols: Supporting the Analysis of Risks of Violation. In Proc. of RELAW 2011.· M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, V. Patti, and E. Marengo. Supporting the Analysis of Risksof Violation in Business Protocols: the MiFID Case Study. In Information Systems:Crossroads for Organization, Management, Accounting and Engineering. Springer,2012. Best Track Paper Award.

Evaluation MiFID


Sale Protocol

(a) propose solution(b) accept proposal(c) introduce investor(d) prepare contract(e) sign contract(f) countersign contract(g) notify(h) invest(i) withdraw

Introducing MiFID

(j) interview(k) profile(l) classify products(m) evaluate(n) verify

Constraints specifying the Grafting

(c1) document supplied −.• C(bank, inv , invest)(c2) document supplied −.• C(inv , bank, prepare contract, sign contract)

∧C(inv , bank, sign contract)(c3) interview −.• introduce investor(c4) verify −.• countersign contract(c5) profile −.• C(fp, inv , proposed riskL)(c6) evaluate −.• proposed riskL


Evaluation MiFID

Labelled Graph after MiFID


Main Contributions

Main Contributions


Interaction and coordina-tion among agents Adaptation/Grafting


Evaluation

Support to usability Methodology

2CM: the Constraints among CommitmentsMethodology

2CM supports the analyst in:

Protocol Specification

Protocol Composition

Protocol Specialization

It adapts the Amoeba [Desai et al., 2009] methodology to handling 2CLprotocols and extends it for protocol Specialization


Support to usability Tools

Tool

It is realized as an Eclipse plug-in:

Translating specification files

Support for protocol specification

Generation and Visualization of the Labelled Graph of PossibleInteractions

Exploration of the labelled graph:

one node at a time;legal paths;illegal paths;content of states.

http://di.unito.it/2cl


M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, F. Capuzzimati, E. Marengo, and V.Patti. A Generalized Commitment Machine for 2CL Protocolsand its Implementation. Proc. of DALT 2012.

http://di.unito.it/2cl

Support to usability Tools

Labelled Graph of Interactions

Aims at

supporting the analysis of the specification (e.g. the Analysis of risks ofviolations)

It is realized in tuProlog

It extends the enhanced commitment machine by Winikoff et al.[Winikoff et al., 2005, DALT]

Enhanced Commitment Machine features:

Generation of reachable statesCommitments life-cycle

Additionally we evaluate protocol constraints


Main Contributions

Main Contributions




Adaptation/Grafting


Evaluation

2CL-GCM

Theoretical Framework

2CL-GCM: 2CL-Generalized Commitment Machine

2CL-GCM extends the Generalized Commitment Machine (GCM) bySingh [Singh, 2007, IJCAI]

GCM allows to infer transitions among the states

Given a set of statesGiven a set of actions

2CL-GCM extends GCM

accounting for a set of constraintsconstraints are used to characterise a path of the 2CL-GCM


M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, F. Capuzzimati, E. Marengo, and V.Patti. A Generalized Commitment Machine for 2CL Protocolsand its Implementation. Proc. of DALT 2012.

2CL-GCM

LTL interpretation of 2CL constraints

Protocol constraints Cst

To be a path of a 2CL-GCM a sequence of states must satisfy theconstraints in Cst

To this aim we associate an LTL interpretation (ϕltl ) to each 2CLoperator

Relation Operator LTL interpretation ϕltl

RelationOperators

CorrelationA correlate B ♦A→ ♦B

A not correlate B ♦A→ ¬♦B

Co-existenceA co-exist B ϕltl (A correlate B) ∧ ϕltl (B correlate A)

A not co-exist B ϕltl (A not correlate B) ∧ ϕltl (B not correlate A)

TemporalOperators

ResponseA response B �(A→ ♦B)

A not response B �(A→ ¬♦B)

BeforeA before B ¬B ∪ A

A not before B �(♦B → ¬A)

CauseA cause B ϕltl (A response B) ∧ ϕltl (A before B)

A not cause B ϕltl (A not response B) ∧ ϕltl (A not before B)

StrongSequence

PremiseA premise B �(©B → A)A not premiseB �(©B → ¬A)


M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, and E. Marengo.Behavior-oriented Commitment- basedProtocols. In Proc. of ECAI 2010.

2CL-GCM

2CL-Generalized Commitment Machine (2CL-GCM)

2CL-GCM

A 2CL-GCM is a tuple P = 〈S ,A, s0,∆,G ,Cst〉, where:

- S is a finite set of states;

- A is a finite set of actions;

- s0 ∈ S is the initial state;

- ∆ is an action theory;

- G ⊆ S is a set of good states;

- Cst is a set of 2CL constraints.

(i) Members of S are logically distinct, that is: ∀s, s ′ ∈ S , s 6≡ s ′; (ii)false 6∈ S ; and (iii) any state that logically derives a good state is alsogood.


2CL-GCM

Path of a 2CL-GCM

Path of a 2CL-GCM

Is a path according to the GCM and

It satisfies the LTL interpretation associated to each 2CL constraintof the specification

2CL-GCM path

Let P = 〈S ,A, s0,∆,G ,Cst〉 be a 2CL-GCM. Let τ = 〈(τ0, a0, τ1), . . . 〉be an infinite sequence of triples and T (τ) be the corresponding transitionsystem. Let inf (τ) be the set of states that occur infinitely often in τ . τ isa path generated from P when:

(i) ∀(τi , ai , τi+1) in τ then τi , τi+1 ∈ S and ai ∈ A and

τiai↪→ τi+1 ∈ ∆; and

(ii) inf (τ) ∩ G 6= ∅; and

(iii) ∀c ∈ Cst : T (τ), τ0 |=LTL ϕltl (c)


Conclusions

Conclusions and Future Work

2CL Protocols

Allow for the specification of patterns of interaction in protocolspecifications

The specification is flexible

They foster reuse of the specification by supporting the adaptation ofa specification to different contexts


Conclusions

Conclusions and Future Work

Ongoing and Future Directions

Introduce 2CL constraints as commitment conditions:

along the line of Regula [Marengo et al., 2011];explicitly identifying a responsible;modifying commitments’ life cycle;notions of safety and control.

Study new functionalities for the tool and explore the adoption ofdifferent languages

Exploit the A&Ameta-model [Baldoni et al., 2010, Baldoni et al., 2011a]:

capturing direct and indirect communication;supporting observability [Baldoni and Baroglio, 2012];monitoring the interaction.


Conclusions

Thanks


Conclusions

Baldoni, M. and Baroglio, C. (2012).Some Thoughts about Commitment Protocols.In Baldoni, M., Dennis, L., Mascardi, V., and Vasconcelos, W.,editors, Proc. of International Workshop on Declarative AgentLanguages and Technologies, DALT 2012, held in conjuction withAAMAS 2012, Valencia, Spain.

Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Bergenti, F., Boccalatte, A., Marengo, E.,Martelli, M., Mascardi, V., Padovani, L., Patti, V., Ricci, A., Rossi,G., and Santi, A. (2010).MERCURIO: An Interaction-oriented Framework for Designing,Verifying and Programming Multi-Agent Systems.In Fornara, N. and Vouros, G., editors, Proc. of the 3rd Multi-AgentLogics, Languages, and Organisations Federated Workshops(MALLOW’10), 11th International Workshop on Coordination,Organization, Institutions and Norms in Multi-Agent Systems(COIN@MALLOW 2010), volume 627, Domain Valpre in Lyon,France. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.


Conclusions

Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Bergenti, F., Marengo, E., Mascardi, V.,Patti, V., Ricci, A., and Santi, A. (2011a).An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments.In Pirrone, R. and Sorbello, F., editors, Proc. Artificial IntelligenceAround Man and Beyond, 12th Congress of the Italian Association forArtificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2011), volume 6934 of LNAI, pages68–79, Palermo, Italy. Springer.

Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Brunkhorst, I., Henze, N., Marengo, E., andPatti, V. (2011b).Constraint Modeling for Curriculum Planning and Validation.International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments,19(1):83–123.

Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., and Marengo, E. (2007).Curricula Modeling and Checking.In Basili, R. and Pazienza, M. T., editors, Proc. of AI*IA 2007:Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 10th Congress of the Italian


Conclusions

Association for Artificial Intelligence, volume 4733 of LNAI, pages471–482, Rome, Italy. Springer.

Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., and Torroni, P. (2009).Commitment Tracking via the Reactive Event Calculus.In Boutilier, C., editor, IJCAI, pages 91–96, Pasadena, California, USA.

Chopra, A. (2009).Commitment Alignment: Semantics, Patterns, and DecisionProcedures for Distributed Computing.PhD thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Chopra, A. K. and Singh, M. P. (2006).Contextualizing Commitment Protocol.In Nakashima, H., Wellman, M. P., Weiss, G., and Stone, P., editors,Proc. of 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agentsand Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), pages 1345–1352,Hakodate, Japan. ACM.

Chopra, A. K. and Singh, M. P. (2008).


Conclusions

Constitutive Interoperability.In Proc. of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomousagents and multiagent systems, volume 2, pages 797–804.International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and MultiagentSystems.

Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., and Singh, M. P. (2009).Amoeba: A Methodology for Modelling and EvolvingCross-Organizational Business Processes.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 19(2).

Fornara, N. and Colombetti, M. (2003).Defining Interaction Protocols using a Commitment-based AgentCommunication Language.In [Rosenschein et al., 2003], pages 520–527.

Fornara, N. and Colombetti, M. (2004).A Commitment-Based Approach To Agent Communication.Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(9-10):853–866.


Conclusions

Kafali, O. and Yolum, P. (2009).Detecting Exceptions in Commitment Protocols: Discovering HiddenStates.In Proc. of the Second Multi-Agent Logics, Languages, andOrganisations Federated Workshops (MALLOW 2009), volume 494 ofCEUR Workshop Proceedings, Turin, Italy. CEUR-WS.org.

Mallya, A. U. and Singh, M. P. (2006).Introducing Preferences into Commitment Protocols.In Dignum, F., van Eijk, R. M., and Flores, R. A., editors, AgentCommunication II, International Workshops on Agent Communication(AC 2005 and AC 2006), volume 3859 of LNCS, pages 136–149,Utrecht, Netherlands. Springer.

Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A. K., Patti, V., andSingh, M. P. (2011).Commitments with Regulations: Reasoning about Safety and Controlin REGULA.


Conclusions

In Sonenberg, L., Stone, P., Tumer, K., and Yolum, P., editors,AAMAS, volume 1–3, pages 467–474, Taipei, Taiwan. IFAAMAS.

Miller, T. and McGinnis, J. (2008).Amongst First-Class Protocols.In Proc. of Eng. Societies in the Agents World VIII, volume 4995 ofLNCS, pages 208–223. Springer.

Montali, M. (2009).Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models.PhD thesis, Electronics, Computer Science and TelecommunicationsEngineering, University of Bologna.

Montali, M., Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Alberti, M., andLamma, E. (2010).Abductive Logic Programming as an Effective Technology for theStatic Verification of Declarative Business Processes.Fundamenta Informaticae, 102(3-4):325–361.


Conclusions

Rosenschein, J. S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., and Yokoo, M.,editors (2003).Proc. of the Second International Joint Conference on AutonomousAgents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), Melbourne, Australia.ACM.

Searle, J. R. (1995).The construction of social reality.Free Press, New York.

Singh, M. P. (2003).Distributed Enactment of Multiagent Workflows: Temporal Logic forWeb Service Composition.In [Rosenschein et al., 2003], pages 907–914.

Singh, M. P. (2007).Formalizing Communication Protocols for Multiagent Systems.In Veloso, M. M., editor, IJCAI, pages 1519–1524, Hyderabad, India.

Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., and Montali, M. (2009).


Conclusions

Social Commitments in Time: Satisfied or Compensated.In Baldoni, M., Bentahar, J., van Riemsdijk, M. B., and Lloyd, J.,editors, DALT, volume 5948 of LNCS, pages 228–243, Budapest,Hungary. Springer.

van der Aalst, W. M. P. and Pesic, M. (2006).DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language.In Leymann, F., Reisig, W., Thatte, S. R., and van der Aalst, W.M. P., editors, The Role of Business Processes in Service OrientedArchitectures, volume 06291 of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings.Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik(IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.

Weiss, G., editor (1999).Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed ArtificialIntelligence.The MIT Press.

Winikoff, M., Liu, W., and Harland, J. (2005).Enhancing Commitment Machines.


Conclusions

In DALT 2004, volume 3476 of LNCS, pages 198–220. Springer.

Wooldridge, M. (2002).An Introduction to Multiagent Systems.John Wiley & Sons.

Yolum, P. and Singh, M. P. (2002).Commitment Machines.In Meyer, J.-J. C. and Tambe, M., editors, Proc. of the 8thInternational Workshop on Intelligent Agents VIII (ATAL 2001),volume 2333 of LNCS, pages 235–247, Seattle, WA, USA. Springer.


2CL Protocols: Interaction Patterns Speci cation in ...2CL Protocols: Interaction Patterns Speci cation in Commitment Protocols Elisa Marengo Universit a degli Studi di Torino Scuola

Documents