skip to main content
research-article

A Commitment-Based Infrastructure for Programming Socio-Technical Systems

Published:17 December 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Socio-Technical Systems demand an evolution of computing into social computing, with a transition from an individualistic to a societal view. As such, they seem particularly suitable to realize multiparty, cross-organizational systems. Multi-Agent Systems are a natural candidate to realize Socio-Technical Systems. However, while Socio-Technical Systems envisage an explicit layer that contains the regulations that all parties must respect in their interaction, and thus preserve the agents' autonomy, current frameworks and platforms require to hard-code the coordination requirements inside the agents. We propose to explicitly represent the missing layer of Socio-Technical Systems in terms of social relationships among the involved parties, that is, in terms of a set of normatively defined relationships among two or more parties, subject to social control by monitoring the observable behaviour. In our proposal, social relationships are resources, available to agents, who use them in their practical reasoning. Both agents and social relationships are first-class entities of the model. The work also describes 2COMM4JADE, a framework that realizes the proposal by extending the well-known JADE and CArtAgO. The impact of the approach on programming is explained both conceptually and with the help of an example.

References

  1. Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, and Federico Capuzzimati. 2013a. 2COMM: A commitment-based MAS architecture. In Revised Selected Papers of the 1st International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS'13), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8245, M. Cossentino, A. El Fallah-Seghrouchni, and M. Winikoff, Eds., Springer, 38--57. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45343-4_3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, and Federico Capuzzimati. 2014. Typing multi-agent systems via commitments. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS'14), held in conjuction with AAMAS'14. M. B. van Riemsdijk, F. Dalpiaz, and J. Dix, Eds., IFAAMAS, 341--359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, Elisa Marengo, and Viviana Patti. 2013b. Constitutive and regulative specifications of commitment protocols: a decoupled approach. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 4, 2, 22:1--22:25. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2438653.2438657 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, Elisa Marengo, Viviana Patti, and Alessandro Ricci. 2011. Back to the future: An interaction-oriented framework for social computing. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Social Computing (RESC 2011), held in conjunction with the 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. A. K. Chopra, F. Dalpiaz, and S. O. Lim, Eds., 2--5. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/RESC.2011.6046711Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Matteo Baldoni, Guido Boella, and Leendert van der Torre. 2007. Interaction between objects in PowerJava. J. Object Tech. 6, 2, 5--30. http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2007_02Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Matteo Baldoni, Andrea Omicini, Cristina Baroglio, Viviana Mascardi, and Paolo Torroni. 2010. Agents, multi-agent systems and declarative programming: What, when, where, why, who, how? In Twenty-Five Years of Logic Programming in Italy, A. Dovier and E. Pontelli, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6125, Springer, 204--230. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14309-0_10 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fabio Bellifemine, Federico Bergenti, Giovanni Caire, and Agostino Poggi. 2005. JADE: A Java agent development framework. In Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications, R. H. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. JDix, and A. El Fallah-Seghrouchni, Eds., Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, Vol. 15. Springer, 125--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fabio Luigi Bellifemine, Giovanni Caire, and Dominic Greenwood. 2007. Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Guido Boella and Leendert W. N. van der Torre. 2007. The ontological properties of social roles in multiagent systems: Definitional dependence, powers and roles playing roles. Artif. Intell. Law 15, 3, 201--221. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9030-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Rafael H. Bordini, Lars Braubach, Mehdi Dastani, Amal El Fallah-Seghrouchni, Jorge J. Gómez-Sanz, João Leite, Gregory M. P. O'Hare, Alexander Pokahr, and Alessandro Ricci. 2006. A survey of programming languages and platforms for multi-agent systems. Informatica (Slovenia) 30, 1, 33--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Rafael H. Bordini, Jomi Fred Hübner, and Michael Wooldridge. 2007. Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Frances M. T. Brazier, Barbara Dunin-Keplicz, Nicholas R. Jennings, and Jan Treur. 1997. DESIRE: Modelling multi-agent systems in a compositional formal framework. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 6, 1, 67--94. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218843097000069Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Paolo Bresciani and Paolo Donzelli. 2004. A practical agent-based approach to requirements engineering for socio-technical systems. In Revised Selected Papers of the 5th International Bi-Conference Workshop on Agent-Oriented Information Systems (AOIS'03). P. Giorgini, B. Henderson-Sellers, and M. Winikoff, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3030, Springer, 158--173. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25943-5_11Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Albert Cherns. 1976. Principles of socio-technical design. Human Relations 2, 783--792.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Amit K. Chopra. 2009. Commitment alignment: Semantics, patterns, and decision procedures for distributed computing. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Amit K. Chopra and Munindar P. Singh. 2009. An architecture for multiagent systems: An approach based on commitments. In Proceedings of the AAMAS Workshop on Programming Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 184--202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosaria Conte, Cristiano Castelfranchi, and Frank Dignum. 1999. Autonomous norm acceptance. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL'98). J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1555, Springer, 99--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Fabiano Dalpiaz, Amit K. Chopra, and Soo Ling Lim. 2011. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Social Computing. IEEE, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/RESC.2011.6046710Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehdi Dastani, Davide Grossi, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, and Nick A. M. Tinnemeier. 2009. Normative multi-agent programs and their logics. In Revised Selected Papers of the 1st International Workshop on Knowledge Representation for Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (KRAMAS'08). J.-J. Ch. Meyer and J. Broersen, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5605, Springer, 16--31. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05301-6_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nirmit Desai, Amit K. Chopra, and Munindar P. Singh. 2009. Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19, 2, Article 6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1571629.1571632 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. European Parliament. 2004. Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments. J. Euro. Union L145, 1--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Michael Fisher, Rafael H. Bordini, Benjamin Hirsch, and Paolo Torroni. 2007. Computational logics and agents: A road map of current technologies and future trends. Comput. Intell. 23, 1, 61--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Nicoletta Fornara, Francesco Viganò, and Marco Colombetti. 2007. Agent communication and artificial institutions. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 14, 2, 121--142. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-0017-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Nicoletta Fornara, Francesco Viganò, Mario Verdicchio, and Marco Colombetti. 2008. Artificial institutions: A model of institutional reality for open multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law 16, 1, 89--105. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9055-z Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. 2002. FIPA Specifications. http://www.fipa.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jomi Fred Hübner, Olivier Boissier, Rosine Kitio, and Alessandro Ricci. 2010. Instrumenting multi-agent organisations with organisational artifacts and agents. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 20, 3, 369--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Elisa Marengo, Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, Amit K. Chopra, Viviana Patti, and Munindar P. Singh. 2011. Commitments with regulations: Reasoning about safety and control in REGULA. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'11). K. Tumer, P. Yolum, L. Sonenberg, and P. Stone, Eds., Vol. 2, IFAAMAS, 467--474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Viviana Mascardi, Maurizio Martelli, and Leon Sterling. 2004. Logic-based specification languages for intelligent software agents. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 4, 4, 429--494. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1471068404002029 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Raul Medina-Mora, Terry Winograd, Rodrigo Flores, and Fernando Flores. 1993. The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. Inf. Soc. 9, 4, 391--404. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.1993.9960152Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Daniel Okouya, Nicoletta Fornara, and Marco Colombetti. 2013. An infrastructure for the design and development of open interaction systems. In Revised Selected Papers of the 1st International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS'13). M. Cossentino, A. El Fallah-Seghrouchni, and M. Winikoff, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8245, Springer, 215--234. DOI:http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45343-4_12Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Andrea Omicini, Alessandro Ricci, and Mirko Viroli. 2008. Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 17, 3, 432--456. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Andrea Omicini and Franco Zambonelli. 1998. TuCSoN: A coordination model for mobile information agents. IDI-TR-5/98. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Innovative Internet Information Systems (IIIS'98). D. G. Schwartz, M. Divitini, and T. Brasethvik, Eds., 177--187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Maja Pesic and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2006. A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In Proceedings of the International Workshops on Business Process Management. J. Eder and S. Dustdar, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4103, Springer, 169--180. DOI:http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/11837862_18 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Daniele Porello, Francesco Setti, Roberta Ferrario, and Marco Cristani. 2013. Multiagent socio-technical systems: An ontological approach. In Revised Selected Papers of the Interantional Workshops on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems. T. Balke, F. Dignum, M. B. van Riemsdijk, and A. K. Chopra, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8386, Springer, 42--62. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07314-9_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Alessandro Ricci, Michele Piunti, and Mirko Viroli. 2011. Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 23, 2, 158--192. DOI:http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9140-7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Thiago Fredes Rodrigues, Antônio Carlos da Rocha Costa, and Graçaliz Pereira Dimuro. 2013. A communication infrastructure based on artifacts for the JaCaMo platform. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS'13), held in conjuction with AAMAS'13. M. Cossentino, A. El Fallah Seghrouchni, and M. Winikoff, Eds., IFAAMAS, 97--111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Munindar P. Singh. 1999. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law 7, 1, 97--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Munindar P. Singh. 2000. A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Issues in Agent Communication, F. Dignum and M. Greaves, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1916, Springer, 31--45. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/10722777_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Munindar P. Singh. 2011. LoST: Local state transfer: An architectural style for the distributed enactment of business protocols. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'11). IEEE, 57--64. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICWS.2011.48 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Munindar P. Singh. 2014. Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 5, 1, Article 21. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2542182.2542203 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Ian Sommerville. 2010. Software Engineering (9th Ed.). Addison-Wesley, Harlow, England. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Ian Sommerville, Dave Cliff, Radu Calinescu, Justin Keen, Tim Kelly, Marta Z. Kwiatkowska, John A. McDermid, and Richard F. Paige. 2012. Large-scale complex IT systems. Commun. ACM 55, 7, 71--77. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2209249.2209268 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Pankaj R. Telang and Munindar P. Singh. 2010. Abstracting and applying business modeling patterns from RosettaNet. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'10). P. P. Maglio, M. Weske, J. Yang, and M. Fantinato, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6470, Springer, 426--440. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17358-5_29Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Pankaj R. Telang and Munindar P. Singh. 2011. Specifying and verifying cross-organizational business models: An agent-oriented approach. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 5, 3, 305--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Pankaj R. Telang and Munindar P. Singh. 2012. Comma: A commitment-based business modeling methodology and its empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'12). W. van der Hoek, L. Padgham, V. Conitzer, and M. Winikoff, Eds., IFAAMAS, 1073--1080. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Alexander Thiele, Thomas Konnerth, Silvan Kaiser, Jan Keiser, and Benjamin Hirsch. 2009. Applying JIAC V to real world problems: The MAMS case. In Proceedings of the 7th German Conference on Multiagent System Technologies (MATES'09). L. Braubach, W. van der Hoek, P. Petta, and A. Pokahr, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5774, Springer, 268--277. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04143-3_29 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Eric Trist. 1981. The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program. Occasional paper 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Danny Weyns, Andrea Omicini, and James Odell. 2007. Environment as a first class abstraction in multiagent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 14, 1, 5--30. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-0012-0 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Stephen A. White. 2004. Introduction to BPMN. Tech. Rep., Object Management Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad. 2013. Socio-technical system design. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed., Mads Soegaard with Rikke Friis Dam (Ed.), The Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus, Denmark, Chapter 24. http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/socio-technical_system_design.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Pinar Yolum and Munindar P. Singh. 2002. Commitment machines. In Revised Papers of the 8th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents (ATAL'01). J.-J. Ch. Meyer and M. Tambe, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2333, Springer, 235--247. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45448-9_17 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Commitment-Based Infrastructure for Programming Socio-Technical Systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!