Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes

Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 2, Issue , 2007, Pages 1328-1333

  Desai, Nirmit ^a   Chopra, Amit K ^a   Singh, Munindar P ^a  

^a North Carolina State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE BASED REASONING; CONTRACTS; INTERACTIVE DEVICES; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; SEMANTICS; WEB SERVICES;

BUSINESS PROCESSES; CONCURRENT COMMITMENT OPERATIONS; SEMANTIC SERVICE COMPOSITION;

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING;

EID: 36349027545     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Chopra, A. K., and Singh, M. P. 2006. Contextualizing commitment protocols. In AAMAS, 1345-1352.
2. Desai, N., and Singh, M. P. 2007. A modular action description language for protocol composition. In AAAI.
3. Desai, N.; Mallya, A. U.; Chopra, A. K.; and Singh, M. P. 2005. Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE T. Soft. Engg. 31(12):1015-1027.
4. Fornara, N., and Colombetti, M. 2003. Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In AAMAS, 520-527.
5. Foster, H.; Uchitel, S.; Magee, J.; and Kramer, J. 2006. Model-based analysis of obligations in web service choreography. In ICIW.
6. Fu, X.; Bultan, T.; and Su, J. 2004. Conversation protocols: A formalism for specification and verification of reactive electronic services. Theoret. Comp. Sci. 328(1-2): 19-37.
7. Giunchiglia, E.; Lee, J.; Lifschitz, V.; McCain, N.; and Turner, H. 2004. Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1-2)49-104.
8. Grosof, B. N., and Poon, T. C. 2004. SweetDeal: Representing agent contracts with exceptions using semantic web rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. Intl. J. Electronic Commerce 8(4):61-98.
9. MAS Lab. 2007. Action description examples in C+. http://research.csc.ncsu.edu/mas/code/causal/.
10. McCarthy, J. 2003. Elaboration tolerance, http://wwwformal.stanford.edu/ jmc/elaboration.html.
11. Minsky, N. H., and Ungureanu, V. 2000. Law-governed interaction. ACM Trans. Soft. Engg. Method. 9(3):273-305.
12. OWL-S. 2004. OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/.
13. Singh, M. P. 1999. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems Artificial Intelligence and Law 7:97-113.
14. Tan, Y.-H., and Thoen, W. 1998. A logical model of directed obligations and permissions to support electronic contracting. Intl. J. Electronic Commerce 3(2):87-104.
15. van der Aalst, W., and van Hee, K. 2002. Workflow Management Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press.
16. Winikoff, M. 2007. Implementing commitment-based interaction. In AAMAS.