An Organizational Metamodel for the Design of Catalogues of Communicative Actions

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2413)


Modern ACLs, such as FIPA ACL, provide standardized catalogues of performatives denoting types of communicative actions. They have been designed as general purpose languages to ensure interoperability among agent systems. However, recent work reports a need for new ad-hoc sets of performatives in certain contexts, showing that FIPA ACL does not support adequately all relevant types of interactions. In this paper we first present a formal model that relates performatives, and other ACL-related concepts, to the organization of MAS. Then, a principled method for the design of the ACL of a particular MAS is developed, which account for both, reusability and expressiveness. Finally, we illustrate our approach by an example in the domain of online stock brokering.


Multiagent System Information Seeker Financial Advice Agent Communication Language Pragmatic Analysis 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Philip R. Cohen and Hector J. Levesque. Communicative actions for artificial agents. In Victor Lesser, editor, ICMAS’95, pages 65–72. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frank Dignum, Barbara Dunin-Keplicz, and Rineke Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. J. of the IGPL, 9(2):305–319, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Esteva, J. A. Rodriguez, C. Sierra, P. Garcia, and J. L. Arcos. On the formal specifications of electronic institutions. In F. Dignum and C. Sierra, editors, Agent-mediated Electronic Commerce (The European AgentLink Perspective), volume 1191 of LNAI, pages 126–147, Berlin, 2001. Springer.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Ferber and O. Gutknetch. A meta-model for the analysis of organizations in multi-agent systems. In Y. Demazeau, editor, ICMAS’98, pages 128–135. IEEE Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacques Ferber, Olivier Gutknecht, Catholijn M. Jonker, Jean-Pierre Müller, and Jan Treur. Organization models and behavioural requirements specification for multi-agent systems. In Proc. of the EC AI 2000 Workshop on Modelling Artificial Societies and Hybrid Organizations, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification., 2000.
  7. 7.
    Mark T. Maybury. Communicative acts for explanation generation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 37:135–172, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pablo Noriega and Carles Sierra. Towards layered dialogical agents. In Jörg P. Müller, Michael J. Wooldridge, and Nicholas R. Jennings, editors, ATAL’96, volume 1193 of LNAI, pages 173–188. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sascha Ossowski. Coordination in Artificial Agent Societies-Social Structure and its Implications for Autonomus Problem-solving Agents, volume 1535 of LNAI. Springer, Berlin, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Pitt and A. Mamdani. Designing agent communication languages for multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1647:102–114, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    James Rumbaugh, Ivar Jacobson, and Grady Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John Searle. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5:1–23, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.R. Searle and D. Vanderveken. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. M. Serrano. FIPA ACL Structure and Extension Guidelines. Example: the Support of Advisory Interactions. Tech.Rep. PTA01-2, ESCET, University Rey Juan Carlos, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. M. Serrano and S. Ossowski. Domain extensions to the FIPA-ACL: an application to decision support systems. In SEID-2000, pages 1–14. University of Vigo, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Sierra, N. R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons. A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. LNCS, 1365:177–193, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Munindar P. Singh. Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer, 31:40–47, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teun A. van Dijk. Discourse as Social Interaction. SAGE Publications, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Douglas N. Walton and Erik C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Wierzbicka. English speech act verbs. A semantic dictionary. Academic Press, Australia, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michael Wooldridge, Nicholas R. Jennings, and David Kinny. The gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(3):285–312, September 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franco Zambonelli, Nicholas R. Jennings, and Michael Wooldridge. Organizational abstractions for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. In Paolo Ciancarini and Michael J. Wooldridge, editors, AOSE, volume 1957 of LNCS, pages 235–252. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Group, School of EngineeringUniversity Rey Juan CarlosSpain

Personalised recommendations