Logic Journal of the IGPL 18 (1):31-65 (2010)

Multi-agent systems where the agents are developed by parties with competing interests, and where there is no access to an agent’s internal state, are often classified as ‘open’. The members of such systems may inadvertently fail to, or even deliberately choose not to, conform to the system specification. Consequently, it is necessary to specify the normative relations that may exist between the members, such as permission, obligation, and institutional power. We present a framework being developed for executable specification of open multi-agent systems. We adopt a bird’s eye view of these systems, as opposed to an agent’s perspective whereby it reasons about how it should act. This paper is devoted to the presentation of various examples from the NetBill protocol formalised in terms of institutional power, permission and obligation. We express the system specification in the Event Calculus and execute the specification by means of a logic programming implementation. We also give several example formalisations of sanctions for dealing with violations of permissions and obligations. We distinguish between an open multi-agent system and the procedure by which an agent enters and leaves the system. We present examples from the specification of a role-management protocol for NetBill, and demonstrate the interplay between such a protocol and the corresponding multi-agent system
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jigpal/jzp071
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,581
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Deontic Interpreted Systems.Alessio Lomuscio & Marek Sergot - 2003 - Studia Logica 75 (1):63 - 92.
Nonmonotonic Causal Theories.Joohyung Lee, Vladimir Lifschitz & Hudson Turner - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence 153 (1-2):49-104.
An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems. [REVIEW]Munindar P. Singh - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (1):97-113.
Deontic Interpreted Systems.Alessio Lomuscio & Marek Sergot - 2003 - Studia Logica 75 (1):63-92.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Open Agent Society: Retrospective and Prospective Views.Jeremy Pitt & Alexander Artikis - 2015 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 23 (3):241-270.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Multi-Agent Legal Recommender System.Lucas Drumond & Rosario Girardi - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):175-207.
Dynamics of Control.Jeff Sanders & Matteo Turilli - 2007 - First Joint IEEE/IFIP Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE '07):440-449.
Exploring the Future with Resource-Bounded Agents.Michael Fisher & Chiara Ghidini - 2009 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18 (1):3-21.


Added to PP index

Total views
28 ( #396,401 of 2,461,406 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #222,958 of 2,461,406 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes