Dynamic specifications for norm-governed systems

Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 460-479

  Artikis, Alexander ^a   Kaponis, Dimosthenis ^b   Pitt, Jeremy ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY   (Greece)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79751523664     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-256-5.ch019     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. Artikis, A. (2003). Executable Specification of Open Norm-Governed Computational Systems. Ph.D thesis, University of London, London.
2. Artikis, A., Sergot, M., & Pitt, J. (2003). Specifying electronic societies with the Causal Calculator. In F. Giunchiglia, J. Odell & G. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (pp. 1-15). Springer.
3. Artikis, A., Sergot, M., & Pitt, J. (2007). An executable specification of a formal argumentation protocol. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 776-804.
4. Bou, E., López-Sánchez, M., & Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. (2007). Towards self-configuration in autonomic electronic institutions. Proceedings of Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in agent systems. LNCS 4386, pp. 220-235. Springer.
5. Bou, E., López-Sánchez, M., & Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. (2008). Using case-based reasoning in autonomic electronic institutions. Proceedings of Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in agent systems. LNCS 4870, pp. 125-138. Springer.
6. Brewka, G. (2001). Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2), 257-282.
7. Chopra, A., & M, S. (2006). Contextualizing commitment protocols. Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1345-1352). ACM.
8. Clark, K. (1978). Negation as Failure. In H. Gallaire & J. Minker (Eds.), Logic and Databases (pp. 293-322). Plenum Press.
9. Costa, A. R., & Dimuro, G. P. (2008). A Minimal Dynamical MAS Organization Model. To appear in this volume.
10. DeLoach, S. (2008). OMACS: A framework for adaptive, complex systems. To appear in this volume.
11. DeLoach, S., Oyenan, W., & Matson, E. (2008). A capabilities-based model for adaptive organizations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 16(1), 13-56.
12. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., & Turner, H. (2004). Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence, 153(1-2), 49-104.
13. Gordon, T. (1994). The pleadings game: An exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 239-292.
14. Gordon, T. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Hoogendoorn, M. (2007). Adaptation of organizational models for multi-agent systems based on max flow networks. Proceedings of International Joint Conferenece on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), (pp. 1321-1326).
16. Hoogendoorn, M., Jonker, C., Schut, M., & Treur, J. (2007). Modelling centralized organization of organizational change. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 13(2), 147-184.
17. Horling, B., Benyo, B., & Lesser, V. (2001). Using self-diagnosis to adapt organizational structures. In J. Muller, E. Andre, S. Sen & C. Frasson (Ed.), Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents (pp. 529-536). ACM Press.
18. Jones, A., & Sergot, M. (1993). On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification (pp. 275-307). Wiley and Sons.
19. Jones, A., & Sergot, M. (1996). A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL, 4(3), 429-445.
20. Kaponis, D., & Pitt, J. (2006). Dynamic Specifications in norm-governed open computational societies. Proceedings of Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agents' World (ESAW). Springer.
21. Kowalski, R., & Sergot, M. (1986). A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4(1), 67-96.
22. Loui, R. (1992). Process and policy: Resource-bounded non-demonstrative argument. Technical Report, Washington University, Department of Computer Science.
23. Marín, R., & Sartor, G. (1999). Time and norms: a formalisation in the event calculus. Proceedings of Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL) (pp. 90-100). ACM Press.
24. Martin, C., & Barber, K. (2006). Adaptive decision-making frameworks for dynamic multi-agent organizational change. Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, 13(3), 391-428.
25. McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Wooldridge, M. (2002). Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In C. Castelfranchi & L. Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS) (pp. 402-409). ACM Press.
26. Pitt, J., Kamara, L., Sergot, M., & Artikis, A. (2006). Voting in multi-agent systems. Computer Journal, 49(2), 156-170.
27. Prakken, H. (2000). On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments and counterarguments. Proceedings of Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1919, pp. 224-238.
28. Prakken, H. (2001). Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127(1-2), 187-219.
29. Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009-1040.
30. Prakken, H. (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2), 163-188.
31. Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press.
32. Searle, J. (1996). What is a speech act? In A. Martinich (Ed.), Philosophy of Language (3rd Edition ed., pp. 130-140). Oxford University Press.
33. Shoham, Y., & Tennenholtz, M. (1997). On the emergence of social conventions: modelling, analysis and simulations. Artificial Intelligence, 139-166.
34. Vreeswijk, G. (2000). Representation of a formal dispute with a standing order. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 205-231.