Advertisement

Journal on Data Semantics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 99–112 | Cite as

Process Coordination with Business Artifacts and Multiagent Technologies

  • Matteo BaldoniEmail author
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Federico Capuzzimati
  • Roberto Micalizio
Original Article

Abstract

This work is set in the context of data-centric approaches and is motivated by the observation that business artifacts are not devised as natural means of coordination, despite the fact that they have this potential. Instead of using orchestration and choreography languages, we propose to enrich business artifacts with a normative layer that defines the coordination, basing our approach on social commitments. The straightforward advantage is an increased reusability of both processes and business artifacts, thanks to a clear decoupling between the coordination logic and the business logic. We show how social commitments can be leveraged for modularizing the design of distributed tasks and discuss the advantages of the approach from a software engineering perspective.

Keywords

Business artifacts Normative MAS Social commitments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Olivier Boissier (Laboratoire Hubert Curien UMR CNRS 5516, Institut Henri Fayol, MINES Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France) and Jomi Fred Hübner (Department of Automation and Systems Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brasil) for the interesting discussions and for having supported the improvement in the draft. Special thanks to Stefano Tedeschi who supported the implementation. This work was partially supported by the Accountable Trustworthy Organizations and Systems (AThOS) project, funded by Università degli Studi di Torino and Compagnia di San Paolo (CSP 2014).

References

  1. 1.
    Baldoni M, Baroglio C, Calvanese D, Micalizio R, Montali M (2016) Towards data- and norm-aware multiagent systems. In: Post-proceedings of the 4th international workshop on engineering multi-agent systems, EMAS 2016, revised selected and invited papers, no. 10093 in LNAI, pp 22–38Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni M, Baroglio C, Capuzzimati F, Micalizio R (2018) Objective Coordination with Business Artifacts and Social Engagements. In: Teniente E, Weidlich M (eds) Business Process Management Workshops, BPM 2017 International Workshops, Revised Papers, volume 308 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP), p 1–18, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni M, Baroglio C, Capuzzimati F, Micalizio R (2018) Commitment-based agent interaction in JaCaMo+. Fundam Inform 157:1–33MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni M, Baroglio C, Marengo E, Patti V, Capuzzimati F (2014) Engineering commitment-based business protocols with the 2CL methodology. JAAMAS 28(4):519–557.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-013-9233-1 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni M, Baroglio C, May KM, Micalizio R, Tedeschi S (2016) Computational accountability. In: Chesani F, Mello P, Milano M (eds) Deep understanding and reasoning: a challenge for next-generation intelligent agents, URANIA 2016, vol 1802. CEUR, Workshop proceedings, Genoa, Italy, pp 56–62Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldoni M, Baroglio C, May KM, Micalizio R, Tedeschi S (2017) ADOPT JaCaMo: Accountability-driven organization programming technique for JaCaMo. In: PRIMA 2017-20th International Conference, Proceedings, LNCS, vol 10621. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldoni M, Baroglio C, Micalizio R (2018) Goal distribution in business process models. In: Chiara G, Magnini B, Passerini A, Traverso P (eds) Proceedings of the AI*IA 2018-advances in artificial intelligence-17th international conference of the italian association for artificial intelligence. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 11298. Springer, Trento, Italy, 20–23 Nov 2018, pp 252–265.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03840-3_19
  8. 8.
    Bhattacharya K, Caswell NS, Kumaran S, Nigam A, Wu FY (2007) Artifact-centered operational modeling: lessons from customer engagements. IBM Syst J 46(4):703–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhattacharya K, Hull R, Su J (2009) A data-centric design methodology for business processes. In: Cardoso J, van der Aalst W (eds) Handbook of research on business process modeling. IGI Publishing, pp 503–531Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boissier O, Bordini RH, Hübner JF, Ricci A, Santi A (2013) Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Sci Comput Program 78(6):747–761.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2011.10.004 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016764231100181X
  11. 11.
    Bordini RH, Hübner JF, Wooldridge M (2007) Programming multi-agent systems in agentspeak using Jason. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Brito M, Hübner JF, Boissier O (2018) Situated artificial institutions: stability, consistency, and flexibility in the regulation of agent societies. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 32(2):219–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busi N, Ciancarini P, Gorrieri R, Zavattaro G (2001) Coordination models: a guided tour. Springer, Berlin, pp 6–24Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Montali M (2013) Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: Hull R, Fan W (eds) Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, PODS 2013, New York, NY, USA, 22–27 June 2013. ACM, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castelfranchi C (1995) Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Lesser VR, Gasser L (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international conference on multiagent systems, San Francisco, California, USA, 12–14 June 1995. The MIT Press, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chopra AK (2009) Commitment alignment: semantics, patterns, and decision procedures for distributed computing. Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohn D, Hull R (2009) Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng Bull 32(3):3–9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Masellis R, Di Francescomarino C, Ghidini C, Montali M, Tessaris S (2017) Add data into business process verification: bridging the gap between theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the 31st AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, San Francisco, California, USA, 4–9 Feb 2017, pp 1091–1099Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Decker G, Weske M (2011) Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf Syst 36(2):292–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Desai N, Chopra AK, Singh MP (2009) Amoeba: a methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 19(2):6-1–6-45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dumas M (2011) On the convergence of data and process engineering. In: Proceedings of the 15th International conference on advances in databases and information systems, ADBIS. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6909. Springer, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hubner JF, Sichman JS, Boissier O (2007) Developing organised multiagent systems using the MOISE+ model: programming issues at the system and agent levels. Int J Agent Oriented Softw Eng 1(3/4):370–395.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAOSE.2007.016266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hull R, Damaggio E, De Masellis R, Fournier F, Gupta M, Heath III FT, Hobson S, Linehan MH, Maradugu S, Nigam A, Sukaviriya PN, Vaculín R (2011) Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on distributed event-based systems, DEBS 2011, New York, NY, USA, 11–15 July 2011, pp 51–62Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lenzerini M (2002) Data integration: a theoretical perspective. In: Popa L, Abiteboul S, Kolaitis PG (eds) Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 3–5 June. ACM, pp 233–246Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nigam A, Caswell NS (2003) Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst J 42(3):428–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    (OMG) OMG (2006) Case management model and notation (cmmn), version 1.1. OMG Document Number formal/2016-12-01 (http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.1/PDF)
  27. 27.
    Omicini A, Ossowski S (2003) Objective versus subjective coordination in the engineering of agent systems. In: Klusch M, Bergamaschi S, Edwards P, Petta P (eds) AgentLink, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2586. Springer, pp 179–202Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Philippsen M (2000) A survey of concurrent object-oriented languages. Concurr Pract Exp 12(10):917–980CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ricci A, Piunti M, Viroli M, Omicini A (2009) Environment programming in CArtAgO. Springer, Boston, pp 259–288zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schumacher M (2001) Objective coordination in multi-agent system engineering: design and implementation. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silver B (2012) BPMN method and style, with BPMN implementer’s guide, 2nd edn. Cody-Cassidy Press, AptosGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Singh MP (1999) An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif Intell Law 7(1):97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh MP (2003) Distributed enactment of multiagent workflows: temporal logic for web service composition. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 14–18 July 2003. ACM, pp 907–914Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Singh MP (2011) Information-driven interaction-oriented programming: BSPL, the blindingly simple protocol language. In: 10th International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 491–498Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Telang PR, Yorke-Smith N, Singh MP (2012) Relating goal and commitment semantics. In: Proceedings of ProMAS, LNCS, vol 7212. Springer, pp 22–37Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weyns D, Omicini A, Odell J (2007) Environment as a first class abstraction in multiagent systems. JAAMAS 14(1):5–30Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Winikoff M, Yadav N, Padgham L (2018) A new hierarchical agent protocol notation. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 32(1):59–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wooldridge M, Jennings NR, Kinny D (2000) The gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 3(3):285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wooldridge MJ (2002) Introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zambonelli F, Jennings NR, Wooldridge M (2003) Developing multiagent systems: the Gaia methodology. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 12(3):317–370.  https://doi.org/10.1145/958961.958963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations