Modeling conversation policies using permissions and obligations

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 187-206

  Kagal, Lalana ^a   Finin, Tim ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

Author keywords

Agent communication; Conversation policy; Conversation specifications; Obligations; Ontology languages; Permissions; Speech act ontology

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846511744     PISSN: 13872532     EISSN: 15737454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10458-006-0013-z     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, I, Huang, Z., & L. van der Torre. (2001). The BOID architecture conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desire. In fifth international conference on autonomous agents (pp. 9-16).
2. Cable News Network (CNN) (2004). Probe under way on medicare cost, http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/medicare.investigation/
3. Cohen, P. R., Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment, In Artificial Intelligence, 42, 213-261.
4. Cost, R. S., Chen, Y., Finin, T., Labrou, Y., & Peng, Y. (2000). Using colored petri nets for conversation modeling. In F. Dignum & M. Greaves (Eds.), Issues in agent communication (pp. 178-192) Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
5. Dignum, F. (1997). Social interactions of autonomous agents: Private and global views on communication. In ModelAge Workshop (pp. 103-122).
6. Dignum, F., Broersen, J., Dignum, V., & Meyer J.-J. (2004). Meeting the deadline: Why, when, and how. In Third conference on formal aspects of agent-based systems (FAABS III) (April 26-27) Greenbelt, Maryland, USA.
7. Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (1995). Communication and deontic logic. In R. Wieringa & R. Feenstra, (Eds.), Information systems, correctness and reusability, pp. (242-260). World Scientific. Singapore.
8. Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., & McEntire, R. (1994). A semantics approach for kqml - a general purpose communication language for software agents. In third international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM'94).
9. FIPA. Foundation for intelligent physical agents specifications, http://www.fipa.org.
10. Flores, R. A., & Kremer, R. C. (2002). A model for flexible composition of conversations: How a simple conversation got so complicated. In M. P. Huget, F. Dignum & J. L. Koning (Eds.), Third workshop on agent communication languages and conversation policies, First international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2002). Bologna, Italy, July 15-19, 2002.
11. Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2003) Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In Second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 520-527). Melbourne, Australia. ACM Press.
12. Greaves, M. Holmback, H., & Bradshaw, J. (1999). What is a conversation policy? In F. Dignum & M. Greaves (Eds.), Workshop on specifying and implementing conversation policies, Autonomous Agents (AA 1999) (pp. 118-131). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
13. Kagal, L. (2004). A policy-based approach to governing autonomous behavior in distributed environments. PhD Dissertation, September.
14. Kagal, L., Finin, T., & Joshi, A. (2003). A policy based approach to security for the semantic web. In second international semantic web conference (ISWC2003). September 2003.
15. Kagal, L., Finin, T., & Joshi, A. (2003). A policy language for pervasive systems. In IEEE international workshop on policies for distributed systems and networks, Lake, Italy, June 2003.
16. Kifer, M., Lausen, G., & Wu, J. (1995). Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of ACM, 42(4), 741-843.
17. Kollingbaum, M. J., & Norman, T. J. (2003). Norm consistency in practical reasoning agents. In Proceedings of international workshop on programming multiagent systems.
18. Labrou, Y., & Finin, T. (1994). A semantics approach for kqml-a general purpose communication language for software agents. In Third international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM'94), November 1994.
19. Lupu, E. C., & Sloman, M. (1996). Towards a role based framework for distributed systems management. Journal of Networks and Systemss Management. Plenum Press.
20. Lupu, E. C., & Sloman, M. (1999). Conflicts in policy-based distributed systems management. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 25(6), 852-869.
21. Mallya, A. U., Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2003). Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In Proceedings of International workshop on agent communication languages and conversation policies (ACL).
22. Moffett, J., & Sloman, M. (1993). Policy conflict analysis in distributed systems management. Journal of Organizational Computing, 4(1), 1-22.
23. Phillips, L. R., & Link, H. E. (2000). The role of conversation policy in carrying out agent conversations. In F. Dignum & M. Greaves, (Eds.), Issues in agent communication, volume 1916 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
24. Pitt, J., & Mamdani, A. (1999). A protocol-based semantics for an agent communication language. In Proceedings of the international joint conf. on artificial intelligence IJCAI (pp. 486-491).
25. Singh, M.P. (1991). Towards a formal theory of communication for multiagent systems. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference of Artificial Intelligence (IJCAl'91), Sydney, Australia, August.
26. Singh, M.P. (1993). A semantics for speech acts. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 8, 47-71.
27. Smith, I. A., & Cohen, P. R. (1996). Toward a semantics for an agent communication language based on speech acts. In H. Shrobe & T. Senator (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on artificial intelligence, (vol. 2, p. 24-31). Menlo Park, California: AAAI Press.
28. Smith, I. A., Cohen, P. R., Bradshaw, J. M., Greaves, M., & Holmback, H. (1998). Designing conversation policies using joint intention theory. In Proceedings of third international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS98).
29. Venkatraman, M., & Singh, M. P. (1999). Verifying compliance with commitment protocols: Enabling open web-based multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3), 217-236.
30. W3C. Resource Description Framework. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification, http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax- 19990222/, 1999.
31. W3C. Owl web ontology language. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/, 2004.
32. Yang, G., & Kifer, M. (2000). FLORA: Implementing an efficient DOOD system using a tabling logic engine. In Proceedings of Computational Logic -CL-2000, number 1861 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1078-1093). Springer-verlag.
33. Yolum, P., & Singh, M. (2004). Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and AI, 42, (1-3).
34. Zou, Y., Finin, T., & Chen H. (2004). F-OWL: An inference engine for the semantic web, vol. 3228 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-verlag, November 2004. In Proceedings of the third international workshop (FAABS), April 16-18, 2004, Greenbelt, MD, USA.