Amongst First-Class Protocols

  • Tim Miller
  • Jarred McGinnis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4995)


The ubiquity of our increasingly distributed and complex computing environments have necessitated the development of programming approaches and paradigms that can automatically manage the numerous tasks and processes involved. Hence, research into agency and multi-agent systems are of more and more interest as an automation solution. Coordination becomes a central issue in these environments. The most promising approach is the use of interaction protocols. Interaction protocols specify the interaction or social norms for the participating agents. However the orthodoxy see protocols as rigid specifications that are defined a priori. A recent development in this field of research is the specification of protocols that are treated as first-class computational entities. This paper explores the most prominent approaches and compares them.


Multiagent System Process Algebra Interaction Protocol Declarative Language Event Calculus 
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.
    Alberti, M., Daolio, D., Torroni, P., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Specification and verification of agent interaction protocols in a logic-based system. In: SAC 2004: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 72–78. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying electronic societies with the Causal Calculator. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J., Weiss, G. (eds.) AOSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2585, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Silva, L.P., Winikoff, M., Liu, W.: Extending agents by transmitting protocols in open systems. In: Proceedings of the Challenges in Open Agent Systems Workshop, Melbourne, Australia (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desai, N., Mallya, A.U., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: OWL-P: A methodology for business process modeling and enactment. In: Workshop on Agent Oriented Information Systems, pp. 50–57 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desai, N., Singh, M.P.: A modular action description language for protocol composition. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 962–967. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: A commitment-based approach to agent communication. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(9–10), 853–866 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, M.W., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A mathematical model of dialog. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 141(5), 33–48 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McBurney, P., van Eijk, R., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7(3), 235–273 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGinnis, J.: On the mutability of protocols. Phd thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, T., McBurney, P.: Using constraints and process algebra for specification of first-class agent interaction protocols. In: O’Hare, G.M.P., Ricci, A., O’Grady, M.J., Dikenelli, O. (eds.) ESAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4457, pp. 245–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller, T., McBurney, P., McGinnis, J., Stathis, K.: First-class protocols for agent-based coordination of scientific instruments. In: 5th International Workshop on Agent-based Computing for Enterprise Collaboration (ACEC) Agent-Oriented Workflows and Services (to appear,2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robertson, D.: Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In: Proceedings for International Conference on Logic Programming (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strachey, C.: Fundamental concepts in programming languages. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation 13(1), 11–49 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winikoff, M.: Implementing commitment-based interactions. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Shehory, O. (eds.) 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, IFAAMAS, p. 128 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Commitment machines. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and AI 42(1–3), 227–253 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Miller
    • 1
  • Jarred McGinnis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpool 
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEgham 

Personalised recommendations