Communicating sequential processes
Communicating sequential processes
The Z notation: a reference manual
The Z notation: a reference manual
Proving concurrent constraint programs correct
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Types and programming languages
Types and programming languages
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Prevarication in dispute protocols
ICAIL '03 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
A modular action description language for protocol composition
AAAI'07 Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
Using constraints and process algebra for specification of first-class agent interaction protocols
ESAW'06 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Engineering societies in the agents world VII
OWL-P: a methodology for business process development
AOIS'05 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Agent-Oriented Information Systems III
Annotation and Matching of First-Class Agent Interaction Protocols
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Efficient storage and retrieval in agent protocol libraries using subsumption hierarchies
Multiagent and Grid Systems
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper, we examine the composition of first-class protocols for multi-agent systems. First-class protocols are protocols that exist as executable specifications that agents use at runtime to acquire the rules of the protocol. This is in contrast to the standard approach of hard-coding interaction protocols directly into agents --- an approach that seems too restrictive for many intelligent and adaptive agents. In previous work, we have proposed a framework called RASA, which regards protocols as first-class entities. RASA includes a formal, executable language for multi-agent protocol specification, which, in addition to specifying the order of messages using a process algebra, also allows designers to specify the rules and consequences of protocols using constraints. Rather than having hard-coded decision making mechanisms for choosing their next move, agents can inspect the protocol specification at runtime to do so. Such an approach would allow the agents to compose protocols at runtime, instead of relying on statically designed protocols. In this paper, we investigate the implications of protocol composition by examining the conditions under which composing existing legal protocols would lead to illegal protocols --- that is, protocols that can fail during execution through no fault of the participants. We precisely define what constitutes an illegal protocol, and present proof obligations about compositions that, when discharged, demonstrate that a composition is legal.