Advertisement

Compiling Dynamic Agent Conversations

  • Pierre Bonzon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2479)

Abstract

We consider defining executable dialogues for communicating agents. Towards this end, we introduce agent classes whose communication primitives are based on deduction. Their operational semantics are given by an abstract logical machine that is defined purely in sequential terms. These agents communicate under the control of plans requiring a synchronization flag. These plans can be rewritten as dialogues with an implicit synchronization. Reversibly, dialogues can be compiled back into plans and then executed on the sequential machine. Sub-dialogues can be entered from any dialogue, such achieving dynamic conversation structures.

Keywords

Multiagent System Operational Semantic Abstract Machine Agent Conversation Communication Primitive 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Bonzon, An Abstract Machine for Communicating Agents Based on Deduction, in: J.-J. Meyer & M. Tambe (eds), Intelligent Agents VIII, LNAI vol. 2333, Springer Verlag (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Elio, A. Haddadi and A. Singh, Task Models, Intentions and Agent Conversation Policies, in: Proc. PRICAI-2000, LNAI vol. 1886, Springer Verlag (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    FIPA Specifications, available on line at http://www.fipa.org
  4. 4.
    G. de Giacomo, Y. Lespérance and H. Levesque, ConGolog, a Concurrent Programming Language Based on the Situation Calculus, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 121 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K.V. Hendricks, F.S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek and J.-J. Meyer, Semantics of Communicating Agents Based on Deduction and Abduction, Proceedings IJCAI99 Workshop on ACL (also Utrecht University Technical Report UU-CS-1999-09)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Nowostawski, M. Purvis and S. Cranefield, A Layered Approach for Modelling Agent Conversations, in: E T. Wagner and O.F. Rana (eds), Proc. 2 nd Int. Workshop on Infrastructure for Agents, MAS, and Scalable MAS, 5 th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents, Montreal (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.J. Odell, H.V.D. Parunak and B. Bauer, Representing Agent Interaction Protocols in UML, in: P. Ciancarini and M. Wooldridge (eds), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, Springer Verlag (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Scott, Y. Chen, T. Finin, Y. Labrou and Y. Peng, Modeling Agent Conversations with Colored Petri Nets, in: Working Notes of the Worshop on Specifying and Implementing Conversation Policies, 3 rd Int. Conf. On Autonomous Agents, Seattle (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Wooldridge and A. Lomuscio, Reasoning about Visibility, Perception and Knowledge, in: N.R. Jennings and Y. Lespérance (eds), Intelligent Agents VI, LNAI vol. 1757, Springer Verlag (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Bonzon
    • 1
  1. 1.HECUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations