Interaction Protocols and Capabilities: A Preliminary Report

A typical problem of the research area on Service-Oriented Architectures is the composition of a set of existing services with the aim of executing a complex task. The selection and composition of the services are based on a description of the services themselves and can exploit an abstract description of their interactions. Interaction protocols (or choreographies) capture the interaction as a whole, defining the rules that entities should respect in order to guarantee the interoperability; they do not refer to specific services but they specify the roles and the communication among the roles. Policies (behavioral interfaces in web service terminology), instead, focus on communication from the point of view of the individual services. In this paper we present a preliminary study aimed to allow the use of public choreography specifications for generating executable interaction policies for peers that would like to take part in an interaction. Usually the specifications capture only the interactive behavior of the system as a whole. We propose to enrich the choreography by a set of requirements of capabilities that the parties should exhibit, where by the term “capability” we mean the skill of doing something or of making some condition become true. Such capabilities have the twofold aim of connecting the interactive behavior to be shown by the role-player to its internal state and of making the policy executable. A possible extension of WS-CDL with capability requirements is proposed.

[1]  Frank Guerin,et al.  Verification and Compliance Testing , 2003, Communication in Multiagent Systems.

[2]  Marco Pistore,et al.  A Minimalist Approach to Semantic Annotations for Web Processes Compositions , 2006, SEBD.

[3]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages: A Survey , 1995, ECAI Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages.

[4]  Marc-Philippe Huget,et al.  Communication in Multiagent Systems , 2003 .

[5]  Stefania Costantini,et al.  Learning by Knowledge Exchange in Logical Agents , 2005, WOA.

[6]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Specification and Verification of Agent Interaction using Social Integrity Constraints , 2004, LCMAS.

[7]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Issues in Agent Communication , 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Guido Boella,et al.  Bridging Agent Theory and Object Orientation: Importing Social Roles in Object Oriented Languages , 2005, PROMAS.

[9]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  Verification of Protocol Conformance and Agent Interoperability , 2005, CLIMA.

[10]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  Reasoning about interaction protocols for customizing web service selection and composition , 2007, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[11]  Frank Dignum Advances in Agent Communication , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[12]  Jean-Luc Koning,et al.  Interaction Protocol Engineering , 2003, Communication in Multiagent Systems.

[13]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Life After BPEL? , 2005, EPEW/WS-FM.

[14]  H. Van Dyke Parunak,et al.  Representing Agent Interaction Protocols in UML , 2000, AOSE.

[15]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Issues in the Design of Negotiation Protocols for Logic-Based Agent Communication Languages , 2000, AMEC.

[16]  Matjaz B. Juric,et al.  Business process execution language for web services , 2004 .

[17]  Takahiro Kawamura,et al.  Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities , 2002, SEMWEB.

[18]  Viviana Mascardi,et al.  From UML Diagrams to Jess Rules: Integrating OO and Rule-Based Languages to Specify, Implement and Execute Agents , 2003, APPIA-GULP-PRODE.

[19]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Intelligent Agents VI , 2000 .

[20]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  Verifying the Conformance of Web Services to Global Interaction Protocols: A First Step , 2005, EPEW/WS-FM.

[21]  Jeremy V. Pitt,et al.  Communication Protocols in Multi-agent Systems: A Development Method and Reference Architecture , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[22]  Davide Ancona,et al.  COOWS: Adaptive BDI Agents meet Service-Oriented Computing , 2005, EUMAS.

[23]  Davide Ancona,et al.  Coo-BDI: Extending the BDI Model with Cooperativity , 2003, DALT.

[24]  Guido Boella,et al.  powerJava: ontologically founded roles in object oriented programming languages , 2006, SAC '06.

[25]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Service-Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2005, Third International Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 12-15, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, ICSOC.

[26]  Lin Padgham,et al.  Agent Capabilities: Extending BDI Theory , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[27]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Actions Made Explicit in BDI , 2001, Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[28]  Frank Dignum Advances in agent communication : International Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, ACL 2003, Melbourne, Australia, July 14, 2003 : revised and invited papers , 2004 .

[29]  Paolo Busetta,et al.  Structuring BDI Agents in Functional Clusters , 1999, ATAL.

[30]  Carles Sierra,et al.  Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[31]  M. Calisti,et al.  FOUNDATION FOR INTELLIGENT PHYSICAL AGENTS , 2000 .

[32]  Markus Stumptner,et al.  AI 2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[33]  Roberto Gorrieri,et al.  Choreography and Orchestration: A Synergic Approach for System Design , 2005, ICSOC.

[34]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communicating and mobile systems - the Pi-calculus , 1999 .

[35]  Mario Bravetti,et al.  Formal Techniques for Computer Systems and Business Processes, European Performance Engineering Workshop, EPEW 2005 and International Workshop on Web Services and Formal Methods, WS-FM 2005, Versailles, France, September 1-3, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, EPEW/WS-FM.

[36]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Towards a Testbed for Multi-party Dialogues , 2003, Workshop on Agent Communication Languages.