Unifying the Intentional and Institutional Semantics of Speech Acts

  • Carole Adam
  • Andreas Herzig
  • Dominique Longin
  • Vincent Louis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5948)


Research about the semantics of agent communication languages traditionally sees the opposition between the mentalist and social approaches. In this paper we adopt a mixed approach since we propose a logical framework allowing us to express both the intentional and institutional dimensions of a communicative action. We use this framework to give a semantics for some speech acts representing each of Searle’s categories except expressives. This semantics relaxes the criticized constraints imposed in FIPA-ACL and also extends this standard with new speech acts and new institutional features to characterise them. It has been implemented in an extension of the Semantic Add-on for the JADE agent development platform, and used in an industrial application in the context of automated B2B exchanges.


Multiagent System Institutional Context Institutional Fact Logical Framework Deontic Logic 
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.
    Boella, G., Damiano, R., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Role-based semantics for agent communication: embedding of the ’mental attitudes’ and ’social commitments’ semantics. In: AAMAS 2006, Hakodate, Hokkado, Japon (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bourge, F., Picant, S., Adam, C., Louis, V.: A multi-agent mediation platform for automatic b2b exchanges. In: ESAW 2008 (2008) (demonstration)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.: Beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires as components in an agent architecture. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 20(9), 893–919 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burgess, J.: Logic and time. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 44(4), 566–582 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burgess, J.: Basic tense logic. In: Handbook of philosophical logic, 2nd edn., vol. 7, pp. 1–42. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: ICMAS 1995, San Francisco, pp. 41–48 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaib-draa, B., Labrie, M.-A., Bergeron, M., Pasquier, P.: Diagal: An agent communication language based on dialogues games and sustained by social commitments. Journal of Autonomous Agent and Multi-Agent Systems 13, 61–95 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demolombe, R., Bretier, P., Louis, V.: Norms with deadlines in dynamic deontic logic. In: ECAI 2006, pp. 751–752 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demolombe, R., Louis, V.: Norms, institutional power and roles: towards a logical framework. In: Esposito, F., Raś, Z.W., Malerba, D., Semeraro, G. (eds.) ISMIS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4203, pp. 514–523. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demolombe, R., Louis, V.: Speech acts with institutional effects in agent societies. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 101–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dignum, F., Kuiper, R.: Obligations and dense time for specifying deadlines. In: HICSS, vol. 5, pp. 186–195. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, E., Cavedon, L.: Towards socially sophisticated bdi agents. In: ICMAS 2000, pp. 111–118 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dignum, F., Weigand, H.: Communication and deontic logic. In: Wieringa, R., Feenstra, R. (eds.) Information Systems, correctness and reusability, pp. 242–260. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Int. conf. Information and knowledge management (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    FIPA. The foundation for intelligent physical agents,
  17. 17.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: A commitment-based approach to agent communication. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(9-10), 853–866 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gaudou, B., Herzig, A., Longin, D., Nickles, M.: A new semantics for the fipa agent communication language based on social attitudes. In: Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.) ECAI, pp. 245–249. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaudou, B., Longin, D., Lorini, E., Tummolini, L.: Anchoring institutions in agents’ attitudes: towards a logical framework for autonomous multi-agent systems. In: AAMAS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, A., Carmo, J.: Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-duties. In: Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 8, pp. 265–343. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the interest group in pure and applied logics 4(3) (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lorini, E., Longin, D., Gaudou, B.: The institutional dimension of speech acts: a logical approach based on the concept of acceptance. Research report, IRIT (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: KR 1991 (1991)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadek, D.: A study in the logic of intention. In: KR 1992 (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh, M.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Towards a unification of normative concepts (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wooldridge, M.: Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carole Adam
    • 1
  • Andreas Herzig
    • 2
  • Dominique Longin
    • 2
  • Vincent Louis
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.IRIT (UMR 5505)Université de Toulouse, CNRSFrance

Personalised recommendations