Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2)
Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2)
Open information systems semantics for distributed artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence
Distributed Artificial Intelligence
Distributed Artificial Intelligence
Contextualizing commitment protocol
AAMAS '06 Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
Multiparty asynchronous session types
Proceedings of the 35th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Implementing commitment-based interactions
Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 2
Choice, interoperability, and conformance in interaction protocols and service choreographies
Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
Multiagent commitment alignment
Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
Elements of a business-level architecture for multiagent systems
ProMAS'09 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Programming multi-agent systems
Producing compliant interactions: conformance, coverage, and interoperability
DALT'06 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies
Research directions in agent communication
ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) - Special section on agent communication, trust in multiagent systems, intelligent tutoring and coaching systems
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This note is a retrospective review of our 2006 paper [1] on the properties of protocols, especially interoperability. A bit of history is in order. By 2006, the importance of a social semantics for protocols was well-established in the multiagent systems community. Further, commitments had emerged as a preeminent abstraction for capturing the semantics. The big advantage was that specifying the meaning of protocol messages in terms of the commitments among agents enabled the agents to act flexibly.