Advertisement

An Information Model for Computing Accountabilities

  • Matteo BaldoniEmail author
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Katherine M. May
  • Roberto Micalizio
  • Stefano Tedeschi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11298)

Abstract

We propose an information model that describes which data should be available, together with their relationships, in order to identify accountabilities in a group of interacting parties. The model is intended for use in multi-agent systems, and is expressed by means of Object-Role Modeling, due to the relational nature of the concepts involved.

Keywords

Accountability Responsibility ORM Information model 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, P.A.: Justifications and precedents as constraints in foreign policy decision- making. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 25(4), 738–761 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: ADOPT JaCaMo: accountability-driven organization programming technique for JaCaMo. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds.) PRIMA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10621, pp. 295–312. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: Supporting organizational accountability inside multiagent systems. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10640, pp. 403–417. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: Computational accountability in MAS organizations with ADOPT. J. Appl. Sci. 8(4), 489 (2018). Special issue “Multi-Agent Systems”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R.: Goal distribution in business process models. In: Ghidini, C., et al. (eds.) AI*IA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11298, pp. 252–265. Springer, Cham (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: The ontological properties of social roles in multi-agent systems: definitional dependence, powers and roles playing roles. Artif. Intell. Law 15(3), 201–221 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Ricci, A., Santi, A.: Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(6), 747–761 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2011.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braham, M., van Hees, M.: An anatomy of moral responsibility. Mind 121(483), 601–634 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hulstijn, J., Burgemeestre, B.: Design for the values of accountability and transparency. In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P.E., van de Poel, I. (eds.) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, pp. 303–333. Springer, Dordrecht (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: The thing itself speaks: accountability as a foundation for requirements in sociotechnical systems. In: IEEE 7th International Workshop RELAW. IEEE Computer Society (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/RELAW.2014.6893477
  11. 11.
    Conte, R., Paolucci, M.: Responsibility for societies of agents. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 7(4), 1–2 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darwall, S.: Civil Recourse as mutual accountability. In: Morality, Authority, and Law: Essays in Second- Personal Ethics I. Oxford University Press (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dastani, M., Lorini, E., Meyer, J.C., Pankov, A.: Other-condemning anger = blaming accountable agents for unattainable desires. In: Proceedings of AAMAS. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yazdanpanah, V., Dastani, M.: distant group responsibility in multi-agent systems. In: Baldoni, M., Chopra, A.K., Son, T.C., Hirayama, K., Torroni, P. (eds.) PRIMA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9862, pp. 261–278. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44832-9_16CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Durkheim, E.: De la division du travail social. PUF (1893)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eshleman, A.: Moral responsibility. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feltus, C.: Aligning access rights to governance needs with the responsability MetaModel (ReMMo) in the frame of enterprise architecture. Ph.D. thesis, University of Namur, Belgium, March 2014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1967)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grant, R.W., Keohane, R.O.: Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99(1), 29–43 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A., Patti, V., Singh, M.: Commitments with regulations: reasoning about safety and control in REGULA. In: AAMAS 2011, vol. 2, pp. 467–474. IFAAMAS (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nissenbaum, H.: Accountability in a computerized society. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2(1), 25–42 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Office of the Auditor General of Canada: 2002 December Report of the Auditor General of Canada: Chapter 9 (2002). http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200212_09_e_12403.html
  24. 24.
    Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Exhibit 9.1 The elements of accountability (2002). http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_20021209xe01_e_12282.html
  25. 25.
    Parsons, T.: The Structure of Social Action. Collier-Macmillan, London (1968)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van de Poel, I.: The Relation Between Forward-Looking and Backward-Looking Responsibility. In: Vincent, N., van de Poel, I., van den Hoven, J. (eds.) Moral Responsibility. LOET, vol. 27, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1878-4_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quinn, A., Schlenker, B.R.: Can accountability produce independence? Goals as determinants of the impact of accountability on conformity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28(4), 472–483 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ranathunga, S., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: Integrating expectation monitoring into BDI agents. In: Dennis, L., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H. (eds.) ProMAS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7217, pp. 74–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31915-0_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Romzek, B.S., Dubnick, M.J.: Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Adm. Rev. 47(3), 227–238 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schlenker, B.R., Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Rodolfo, M., Doherty, K.: The triangle model of responsibility. Psychol. Rev. 101(4), 632–652 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simon, J.: Distributed epistemic responsibility in a hyperconnected era. In: Floridi, L. (ed.) The Online Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era, pp. 145–159. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04093-6_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suchman, L.: Centers of coordination: a case and some themes. In: Resnick, L.B., Säljö, R., Pontecorvo, C., Burge, B. (eds.) Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition, pp. 41–62. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03362-3_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Unruh, A., Bailey, J., Ramamohanarao, K.: A framework for goal-based semantic compensation in agent systems. In: Barley, M., Mouratidis, H., Unruh, A., Spears, D., Scerri, P., Massacci, F. (eds.) Safety and Security in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4324, pp. 130–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04879-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations