Skip to main content

Modeling Interactions Using Social Integrity Constraints: A Resource Sharing Case Study

  • Conference paper
Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies (DALT 2003)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2990))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Computees are abstractions of the entities situated in global and open computing environments. The societies that they populate give an institutional meaning to their interactions and define the allowed interaction protocols. Social integrity constraints represent a powerful though simple formalism to express such protocols. Using social integrity constraints, it is possible to give a formal definition of concepts such as violation, fulfillment, and social expectation. This allows for the automatic verification of the social behaviour of computees. The aim of this paper is to show by way of a case study how the theoretical framework can be used in practical situations where computees can operate. The example that we choose is a resource exchange scenario.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Global Computing: Co-operation of Autonomous and Mobile Entities in Dynamic Environments, http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fetgc.htm

  2. Societies Of ComputeeS (SOCS): a computational logic model for the description, analysis and verification of global and open societies of heterogeneous computees, http://lia.deis.unibo.it/Research/SOCS/

  3. Sadri, F., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Minimally intrusive negotiating agents for resource sharing. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Krogh, C.: Obligations in multiagent systems. In: Aamodt, A., Komorowski, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 19–30. ISO Press, Amsterdam (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: An Abductive Interpretation for Open Societies. In: Cappelli, A., Turini, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2829, pp. 287–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Eshghi, K., Kowalski, R.A.: Abduction compared with negation by failure. In: Levi, G., Martelli, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 234–255. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kowalski, R.A., Sadri, F.: From logic programming towards multi-agent systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 391–419 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Poole, D.L.: A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36, 27–47 (1988)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Fung, T.H., Kowalski, R.A.: The IFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 33, 151–165 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Alberti, M., Ciampolini, A., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Logic Based Semantics for an Agent Communication Language. In: Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Formal Approaches to Multi-Agent Systems (FAMAS), Warsaw, Poland, pp. 21–36 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lewis Johnson, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Part II, pp. 527–534. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Guerin, F., Pitt, J.: Proving properties of open agent systems. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lewis Johnson, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Part II, pp. 557–558. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Pitt, J., Guerin, F.: Guaranteeing properties for e-commerce systems. Technical Report TRS020015, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hume, D.: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sadri, F., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: An abductive logic programming architecture for negotiating agents. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 419–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Alberti, M., Daolio, D., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Specification and verification of agent interaction protocols in a logic-based system. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC). Special Track on Agents, Interactions, Mobility, and Systems (AIMS), pp. 72–78 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Frühwirth, T.: Theory and practice of constraint handling rules. Journal of Logic Programming 37, 95–138 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Esteva, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.L.: On the formal specification of electronic institutions. In: Sierra, C., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AgentLink 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 126–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Dellarocas, C., Klein, M.: Civil agent societies: Tools for inventing open agentmediated electronic marketplaces. In: Moukas, A., Ygge, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce II. LNCS, vol. 1788, pp. 24–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Vasconcelos, W.W.: Logic-based electronic institutions. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, pp. 221–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Moses, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Artificial social systems. Computers and AI 14, 533–562 (1995)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The gaia methodology for agentoriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3, 285–312 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lamport, L.: What Good Is Temporal Logic? In: Mason, R.E.A. (ed.) Information Processing, vol. 83, pp. 657–668. Elsevier Sciene Publishers, Amsterdam (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Davidsson, P.: Categories of artificial societies. In: Omicini, A., Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) ESAW 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2203, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Mazouzi, H., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A., Haddad, S.: Open protocol design fo complex interactions in multi-agent systems. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lewis Johnson, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Part II, pp. 402–409. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hewitt, C.: Open information systems semantics for distributed artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 47, 79–106 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.: Animated specifications of computational societies. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lewis Johnson, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Part III, pp. 1053–1061. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Linear logic, partial deduction and cooperative problem solving. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, pp. 263–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Torroni, P., Mello, P., Maudet, N., Alberti, M., Ciampolini, A., Lamma, E., Sadri, F., Toni, F.: A logic-based approach to modeling interaction among computees (preliminary report). In: UK Multi-Agent Systems (UKMAS) Annual Conference, Liverpool, UK (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Alberti, M., Ciampolini, A., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: A social ACL semantics by deontic constraints. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2691, pp. 204–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P. (2004). Modeling Interactions Using Social Integrity Constraints: A Resource Sharing Case Study. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds) Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies. DALT 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2990. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25932-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25932-9_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22124-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-25932-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics