Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Normative Communication Models for Agent

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An agent message is an attempted action upon the information state of the receiver that, if successful, would cause the receiver to move to a new information state. A model of normative communication can define when messages are not merely unsuccessful but instead are illegal or impossible actions upon the receiver’s internal state. The model uses the preconditions of the other core message types, coupled with a model of task interdependencies, agent roles, and belief-desire-intention elements, to define the preconditions for sending a canonical not-understood error message. By defining the space of messages that are legal actions on an agent’s internal state, a normative communication model also defines a set of ‘reasons’ that can accompany the error message. A not-understood error message signals a mismatch between agent interaction models and the accompanying reason opens the possibility for agents to realign their respective models. The paper discusses the matters arising from this possibility. This approach assumes that normative communication behavior reflects normative domain behavior. It also assumes that each agent accesses the normative model, in contrast with more centralized frameworks for defining normative interaction among agents and identifying interaction errors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. L. Austin (1962) How to Do Things with Words Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Barbuceanu and M. S. Fox, “COOL: A language for describing coordination in multi agent systems,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Holden-Day: San Francisco, California, pp. 17–24, 1995.

  3. M. E. Bratman (1990) “What is intention?” P. R. Cohen J. L. Morgan M. E. Pollack (Eds) Intentions in Communication MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 15–32

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. Bretier M. D. Sadek (1997) “A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system,” J. P. Müller M. Wooldridge N. R. Jennings (Eds) Intelligent Agents III (LNAI Vol. 1193) Springer-Verlag Berlin 189–204

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. Bryson, J. Müller, and J. Odell, “An extension of UML by protocols for multiagent interaction,” in International Conference on Multiagent Systems, Hilger: Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 207–214, 2000.

  6. P. R. Cohen H. J. Levesque (1990) ArticleTitle“Intention is choice with commitment” Art. Intell. 42 IssueID2–3 213–261 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0004-3702(90)90055-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. P. R. Cohen C. R. Perrault (1979) ArticleTitle“Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts” Cognitive Sci. 3 177–212 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0364-0213(79)80006-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. DAML, “Agent Markup Language”, www.daml.org <http://www.daml.org>., 2003.

  9. K. Decker (1995) “Environment centered analysis and design of coordination mechanisms” Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  10. K. Decker and V. Lesser, “Quantitative modeling of complex computational task environments”, in AAAI-93–Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Brookings Institute Washington, DC, pp. 217–224, 1993.

  11. K. Decker and V. Lesser, “Designing a family of coordination algorithms,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-agent Systems, Holden-Day: San Francisco, California, pp. 73–80, 1995.

  12. M. d’Inverno, D. Kinny, and M. Luck, “Interaction protocols in Agentis,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-agent Systems (ICMAS-98), Universiteires de Press: Paris, France, pp. 112–119, 1998.

  13. R. Elio A. Haddadi (2000) “On abstract models and conversation policies,” F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in Agent Communication (LNAI 1916) Springer-Verlag Berlin 301–313

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. Elio, A. Haddadi, and A. Singh, “Task models, intentions, and agent communication,” in Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Conference on AI (LNAI 1886). CSIRO: Melbourne, Australia. pp. 394–403, 2000.

  15. R. Fagin J. Halpern Y. Moses M. Y. Vardi (1995) Reasoning about Knowledge MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. Ferguson, J. Allen, and B. Miller, “Trains-95: Towards a mixed-initiative planning assistant,” in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 70–77, 1996.

  17. FIPA, “Agent Communicative Act Library Specification”, www.fipa.org <http://www.fipa.org>, 2003.

  18. M. R. Genesereth S. P. Ketchpel (1994) ArticleTitle“Software agents” Commun. ACM 37 48–53 Occurrence Handle10.1145/176789.176794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. M. Greaves H. Holmbeck J. Bradshaw (2000) “What is a conversation policy?” F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in Agent Communication (LNAI 1916) Springer-Verlag Berlin 118–131

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Groenendijk M. Stokhof F. Veltman (1996) “Coherence and modality,” S. Lappin (Eds) The handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory Blackwell Oxford 179–213

    Google Scholar 

  21. B. Grosof Y. Labrou (2000) “An Approach to using XML and a rule-based content language with an agent communication language,” F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in Agent Communication (LNAI 1916) Springer-Verlag Berlin 96–117

    Google Scholar 

  22. B. Grosz C. Sidner (1986) ArticleTitle“Attention intentions and the structure of discourse” Comput. Linguistics 12 175–204

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. J. Grosz S. Kraus (1996) ArticleTitle“Collaborative plans for complex group action” Artif. Intell. 86 269–357 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0004-3702(95)00103-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. N. R. Jennings (2000) ArticleTitle“On agent-based software engineering” Artif. Intell. 117 277–296 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00107-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. M. Klein and C. Dellarocas, “Exception handling in agent systems”, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents ’99), Seattle, Washington, pp. 62–68, 1999.

  26. Y. Labrou and T. Finin, “A semantics approach for KQML: A general purpose communication language for software agents,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’94), Gaithersburg, Maryland, 1994.

  27. Y. Labrou and T. Finin, “A proposal for a new KQML specification”, Technical Report #CS-97-03, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, 1997.

  28. Y. Labrou T. Finin (1998) “Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language,” M. Huhns M. Singh (Eds) Readings in Agents, Morgan Kaufmann Holden-Day San Francisco, California 235–242

    Google Scholar 

  29. Y. Labrou T. Finin Y. Peng (1999) ArticleTitle“The current landscape of agent communication languages” IEEE Intell. Sys. 14 45–52 Occurrence Handle10.1109/5254.757631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. L. Lambert and S. Carberry, “A tripartite plan-based model of dialogue,” in Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of California Press: Berkeley, California, pp. 47–54, 1991.

  31. D. Litman J. Allen (1990) “Discourse processing and commonsense plans,” P. R. Cohen J. L. Morgan M. E. Pollack (Eds) Intentions in Communication MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 365–388

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. Lochbaum, “The use of knowledge preconditions in language,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lidee: Montreal, Canada, pp. 1260–1266, 1995.

  33. S. W. McRoy G. Hirst (1995) ArticleTitle“The repair of speech act misunderstandings by abductive inference” Comput. Linguistics 21 435–478

    Google Scholar 

  34. C. Petrie, “Agent-based software engineering”, in Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, First International Workshop, AOSE, Limerick, Ireland, 2001.

  35. C. Petrie S. Goldman A. Raquet (1999) “Agent-based project management,” M. Wooldridge M. M. Veloso (Eds) Artificial Intelligence Today: Recent Trends and Developments (LNAI #1600) Springer-Verlag Berlin 339–363

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. Pitt A. Mamdani (2000) “Communication protocols in multi-agent systems,” F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in Agent Communication (LNAI #1916) Springer-Verlag Berlin 160–177

    Google Scholar 

  37. D. Poole R. Goebel R. Aleliunas (1987) “Theorist: A logical reasoning system for defaults and diagnosis,” N. Cercone G. McCalla (Eds) The Knowledge Frontier: Essays in the Representation of Knowledge Springer-Verlag New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. C. Rich, and C. L. Sidner, “COLLAGEN: When agents collaborate with people,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Marina del Rey, California, pp. 284–291, 1997.

  39. M. D. Sadek, “A study in the logic of intention”, in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, San Francisco, California, pp. 462–473, 1992.

  40. J. R. Searle (1965) “What is a speech act?” M. Black (Eds) Philosophy in America Cornell University Press New York 221–239

    Google Scholar 

  41. Y. Shoham (1993) ArticleTitle“Agent oriented programming” Artifi. Intell. 60 51–92 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0004-3702(93)90034-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Q. Situ and E. Stroulia, “Task-structure based mediation: The travel-planning assistant example,” in The Proceedings of the 13th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lidee: Montréal, Québec, Canada, pp. 400–410, 2000.

  43. E. Stroulia and A. Goel, “Functional representation and reasoning in reflective systems,” in J. Appl. Intell., vol. 9, pp. 101–124, 1995.

  44. F. Veltman (1996) ArticleTitle“Defaults in update semantics” J. Philos. Logic 25 221–261 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00248150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. T. Wagner B. Benyo V. Lesser P. Xuan (2000) “Investigating interactions between agent conversations and agent control components,” F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in Agent Communication (LNAI 1916) Springer-Verlag Berlin 314–330

    Google Scholar 

  46. T. Winograd F. Flores (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design Ablex Publishing New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  47. M. Wooldridge (1998) ArticleTitle“Agents and software engineering,” Artifi. Intell. 11 IssueID3 31–37

    Google Scholar 

  48. M. Wooldridge N.R. Jennings (1999) ArticleTitle“Software engineering with agents: Pitfalls and pratfalls” IEEE Internet Computing 3 20–27 Occurrence Handle10.1109/4236.769419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. M. Wooldridge N.R. Jennings (1995) ArticleTitle“Intelligent agents: Theory and practice” Knowledge Eng. Review 10 115–152

    Google Scholar 

  50. M. Wooldridge N. J. Jennings D. Kinny (2000) ArticleTitle“The Gaia Methodology for Agent-oriented analysis and design” J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Sys. 3 285–312 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1010071910869

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, 221 Athabasca Hall, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E8, Canada

    Renée Elio & Anita Petrinjak

Authors
  1. Renée Elio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anita Petrinjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elio, R., Petrinjak, A. Normative Communication Models for Agent. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 11, 273–305 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-004-0555-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-004-0555-x

Key words

Search

Navigation