A Generalized Commitment Machine for 2CL Protocols and Its Implementation

This work proposes an operational semantics for the commitment protocol language 2CL. This semantics relies on an extension of Singh’s Generalized Commitment Machine, that we named 2CL-Generalized Commitment Machines. The 2CL-Generalized Commitment Machine was implemented in Prolog by extending Winikoff, Liu and Harland’s implementation. The implementation is equipped with a graphical tool that allows the analyst to explore all the possible executions, showing both commitment and constraint violations, and thus helping the analyst as well as the protocol designer to identify the risks the interaction could encounter. The implementation is part of an Eclipse plug-in which supports 2CL-protocol design and analysis.

[1]  Jamal Bentahar,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking Commitment Protocols Using Reduction , 2010, DALT.

[2]  J. Hooker.  In This Volume , 2012 .

[3]  Marco Colombetti,et al.  Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[4]  Cristina Baroglio,et al.  Some Thoughts about Commitment Protocols , 2012, WOA.

[5]  Cristina Baroglio,et al.  Behavior-Oriented Commitment-based Protocols , 2010, ECAI.

[6]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Abstracting Business Modeling Patterns from RosettaNet , 2010 .

[7]  Marek Sergot,et al.  On the characterization of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective , 1994 .

[8]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1999 .

[9]  Christel Baier,et al.  Principles of model checking , 2008 .

[10]  Munindar P. Singh.  An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: , 1999, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[11]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Commitments with regulations: reasoning about safety and control in REGULA , 2011, AAMAS.

[12]  Jamal Bentahar,et al.  Verifiable Semantic Model for Agent Interactions Using Social Commitments , 2009, LADS.

[13]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Specifying and verifying interaction protocols in a temporal action logic , 2007, J. Appl. Log..

[14]  Paola Mello,et al.  Commitment Tracking via the Reactive Event Calculus , 2009, IJCAI.

[15]  Marco Colombetti,et al.  A COMMITMENT-BASED APPROACH TO AGENT COMMUNICATION , 2004, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[16]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  Temporal and Modal Logic , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[17]  Cristina Baroglio,et al.  Constitutive and regulative specifications of commitment protocols: A decoupled approach , 2013, TIST.

[18]  Munindar P. Singh.  Formalizing Communication Protocols for Multiagent Systems , 2007, IJCAI.

[19]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Abductive Logic Programming as an Effective Technology for the Static Verification of Declarative Business Processes , 2010, Fundam. Informaticae.

[20]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Modeling exceptions via commitment protocols , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[21]  J. Padget,et al.  Service-Oriented Computing: Agents, Semantics, and Engineering , 2009 .

[22]  Michael Winikoff,et al.  Enhancing Commitment Machines , 2004, DALT.

[23]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Commitment Machines , 2001, ATAL.

[24]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Constitutive interoperability , 2008, AAMAS.

[25]  Julie A. Adams,et al.  Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence , 2001, AI Mag..

[26]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Designing and executing protocols using the event calculus , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[27]  Cristina Baroglio,et al.  Grafting regulations into business protocols: Supporting the analysis of risks of violation , 2011, 2011 Fourth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law.