Advertisement

Ontologies for Interaction Protocols

  • Stephen Cranefield
  • Martin Purvis
  • Mariusz Nowostawski
  • Peter Hwang
Conference paper
Part of the Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies book series (WSSAT)

Abstract

In this paper we propose reducing the degree of human interpretation currently necessary to understand an interaction protocol by describing at an abstract level the required agent actions that must be ‘plugged into’ the protocol for it to be executed. In particular, this can be done by designing and publishing ontologies describing the input and output data that are processed during the protocol’s execution together with the actions and decisions that the agents must perform. An agent (or agent developer) that has previously defined mappings between the internal agent code and the actions and decisions in an ontology would then be able to interpret any interaction protocol that is defined with reference to that ontology. The discussion is based on the use of Coloured Petri Nets to represent interaction protocols and the Unified Modeling Language (UML) for ontology modelling. An alternative approach using Agent UML (AUML) is also outlined.

Keywords

Multiagent System Sequence Diagram Object Constraint Language Interaction Protocol Agent Conversation 
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]
    C. Atkinson and T. Kühne. Processes and products in a multi-level metamodelling architecture. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 11(6):761–783, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Beanshell: Lightweight scripting for Java. http://www.beanshell.org, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Grady Booch, Ivar Jacobson, and James Rumbaugh. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors. Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002). ACM Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Cost, Y. Chen, T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and Y. Peng. Using colored Petri nets for conversation modeling. In Dignum and Greaves Issues in Agent Communication, volume 1916 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2000. [7], pages 178–192.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Cranefield and M. Purvis. A UML profile and mapping for the generation of ontology-specific content languages. Knowledge Engineering Review, 17(1):21–39, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. Dignum and M. Greaves, editors. Issues in Agent Communication, volume 1916 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Eclipse modeling framework. http://www.eclipse.org/emf, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    L. Ehrler and S. Cranefield. Executing agent UML diagrams. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004). ACM Press, 2004. To appear.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Fensel, M. Crubezy, F. van Harmelen, and M. I. Horrocks. OIL & UPML: A unifying framework for the knowledge web. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), 2000. http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/WORKSHOP/ECAI00/14.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Tim Finin, Yannis Labrou, and James Mayfield. KQML as an agent communication language. In J. M. Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents. MIT Press, 1997. Also available at http://www.cs.umbc.edu/kqml/papers/kqmlacl.pdf.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    FIPA Modeling Technical Committee Web site. http://www.auml.org/auml/modelingtc, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. A. Flores and R. C. Kremer. To commit or not to commit: Modelling agent conversations for action. Computational Intelligence, 18(2):120–173, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA request interaction protocol specification, version F. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00026, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA ACL message representation in string specification. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00070, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA interaction protocol library. http://www.fipa.org/repository/ips.html, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Greaves, H. Holmback, and J. Bradshaw. What is a conversation policy? In Dignum and Greaves [7], pages 118–131.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kurt Jensen. Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use, Volume 1: Basic Concepts. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    F. Lin, D. H. Norrie, Weiming Shen, and Rob Kremer. A schema-based approach to specifying conversation policies. In Dignum and Greaves [7], pages 193–204.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. Lind. Specifying agent interaction protocols with standard UML. In M. Wooldridge, G. Weiß, and P. Ciancarini, editors, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering II, volume 2222 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 136–147. Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. Ling and S. W. Loke. A formal compositional model of multiagent interaction. In Castelfranchi and Johnson [4], pages 1052–1053.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Martin and J. J. Odell. Object-Oriented Methods: A Foundation. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, UML edition, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    H. Mazouzi, Amal El Fallah Seghrouchni, and S. Haddad. Open protocol design for complex interactions in multi-agent systems. In Castelfranchi and Johnson [4], pages 517–526.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    T. Murata. Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(4), 1989.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M. Nowostawski, M. Purvis, and S. Cranefield. A layered approach for modelling agent conversations. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Infrastructure for Agents, MAS, and Scalable MAS, 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001. http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/agents2001/papers/06_nowostawski_et_al.pdf.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    M. Nowostawski, M. Purvis, and S. Cranefield. Modelling and visualizing agent conversations. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 234–235. ACM Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Object constraint language library. http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/ocl, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. J. Odell, H. Van Dyke Parunak, and B. Bauer. Representing agent interaction protocols in UML. In Paolo Ciancarini and Michael Wooldridge, editors, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, volume 1957 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 121–140. Springer, 2001. (Draft version at http://www.auml.org/auml/working/Odell-AOSE2000.pdf).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Opal agent platform. http://sourceforge.net/projects/nzdis, 2004.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    D. Poutakidis, L. Padgham, and M. Winikoff. Debugging multi-agent systems using design artifacts: the case of interaction protocols. In Castelfranchi and Johnson [4], pages 960–967.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    M. Purvis, S. Cranefield, M. Nowostawski, and D. Carter. Opal: A multi-level infrastructure for agent-oriented software development. Discussion Paper 2002/01, Department of Information Science, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2002. http://www.otago.ac.nz/informationscience/publctns/complete/papers/dp2002-01.pdf.gz.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    M. Purvis, M. Nowostawski, S. Cranefield, and M. Oliveira. Multi-agent interaction technology for peer-to-peer computing in electronic trading environments. In G. Moro, C. Sartori, and M. Singh, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Agents and Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 103–114, 2003.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    M. Purvis, M. Nowostawski, M. Oliveira, and S. Cranefield. Multi-agent interaction protocols for e-business. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/WIC International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2003), pages 318–324. IEEE Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    M. K. Purvis, S. J. S. Cranefield, M. Nowostawski, and M. A. Purvis. Multi-agent system interaction protocols in a dynamically changing environment. In T. Wagner, G. Vouros, and S. Smith, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop — Toward an Application Science: MAS Problem Spaces and their Implications to Achieving Globally Coherent Behavior, 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2002.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    M. K. Purvis, P. Hwang, M. A. Purvis, S. J. Cranefield, and M. Schievink. Interaction protocols for a network of environmental problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 2002 iEMSs International Meeting: Integrated Assessment and Decision Support (iEMSs 2002), volume 3, pages 318–323. The International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, 2002. http://www.iemss.org/iemss2002/proceedings/pdf/volume%20tre/214_purvis.pdf.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    J. B. Warmer and A. G. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language: Getting your models ready for MDA. Addison-Wesley, 2nd edition, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Cranefield
    • 1
  • Martin Purvis
    • 1
  • Mariusz Nowostawski
    • 1
  • Peter Hwang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Knowledge Engineering and Discovery Research InstituteAUT Technology ParkAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations