Role-based Semantics for Agent Communication Languages
نویسندگان
چکیده
We consider agents having multiple communication sessions at the same time. We assume that FIPA semantics of agent communication languages can still be used when we attribute mental attitudes for each session, which we call the roles of the agents, and we assume that we have to distinguish the mental attitudes attributed to the roles from the mental attitudes of the agents. We consider several consequences of the distinction between the mental attitudes attributed to the roles and the mental attitudes attributed to the agent. First, in attributing mental attitudes to an agent or to one of its roles, we argue that only mental attributes are attributed to an agent’s role when these attributes follow directly from the agent’s communication. They are therefore public in the sense that every agent who has overheard the session, has the same beliefs about the mental attitudes of the role. Second, the moves available to the dialogue participants in the same dialogue game are based on the role only, such that different kind of moves can be specified in different types of dialogue games. Obligations are associated to roles related to institutions which can enforce them by means of sanctions. Third, expectations are based both on the mental attitudes ascribed to the agent and to the role. 1 Multiple sessions at the same time Consider an agent who informs another agent that his web services can be used by all other agents, informs a third agent that his services can only be used by agents with the appropriate certificates, requests from a fourth agent a document, and informs a fifth agent that he does not have a goal to obtain this document. The semantics of speech acts in mentalistic approaches like FIPA [8], specified in terms of plan operators whose preconditions refer to the beliefs, goals and intentions of agents, cannot model such an insincere agent. In this paper we therefore generalize the FIPA model for the various sessions or dialogues of such an agent. 2 Mental attitudes for each session Though an agent may tell two agents incompatible stories, it seems much less useful that an agent is allowed to tell incompatible stories to the same agent. We therefore assume that FIPA semantics of agent communication languages can still be used, when we attribute mental attitudes for each session. We call the mental attitudes of an agent associated with such a session a role of the agent, for reasons that will become apparent only later in this paper. In the literature, the use of roles within agent communication is controversial. On the one hand, communication among agents in a multiagent system is often associated with the roles agents play in the social activity that is automated by the system. The GAIA methodology for agent-based software design [16] proposes interaction rules to specify communication among roles, the ROADMAP methodology [10] specifies in a so called social model the relations among roles, and in AALAADIN [7] interaction is defined only between the roles of a group: “The communication model within a group can be more easily described by an abstracted interaction scheme between roles like the ‘bidder’ and the ‘manager’ roles rather than between individual, actual agents”. On the other hand, most approaches to the semantics of agent communication languages do not take into account the fact that communication always takes place among agents in a role. Role names, like ‘speaker’ and ‘addressee’ or ‘buyer’ and ‘seller’ are often mentioned in the definition of agent communications languages. However, these terms only serve to bind individual agents to the speech acts in the protocol, but they are not associated with a state which changes during the conversation. The function of roles in dialogue we study in this paper is similar to the function they play in an organization, where they define the power of agents to create institutional facts, like commitments. As in organizations, it is possible that the same agent plays different roles, thus determining ambiguities and conflicts. For example, a command issued by a friend may not be effective, unless the friend is also the addressee’s boss. 3 The agent versus its roles We assume also that we have to distinguish the mental attitudes associated with the roles from the mental attitudes of the agents. For example, if we can inspect the knowledge base of an agent, then we should attribute the knowledge not to one of its roles, but to the agent itself. Moreover, we need to represent the mental attitudes of the agent itself if we wish to model that the agent is lying. Therefore, our model of a dialogue between two agents can be visualized as in Figure 1. The circles x and y represent two agents playing respectively roles r1 and r2 in the dialogue game. We use indices i, j to range over role instances, so in the figure we have i = x : r1, j = y : r2.
منابع مشابه
On the Formal Semantics of Speech-Act Based Communication in an Agent-Oriented Programming Language
Research on agent communication languages has typically taken the speech acts paradigm as its starting point. Despite their manifest attractions, speech-act models of communication have several serious disadvantages as a foundation for communication in artificial agent systems. In particular, it has proved to be extremely difficult to give a satisfactory semantics to speech-act based agent comm...
متن کاملLexical Semantics and Selection of TAM in Bantu Languages: A Case of Semantic Classification of Kiswahili Verbs
The existing literature on Bantu verbal semantics demonstrated that inherent semantic content of verbs pairs directly with the selection of tense, aspect and modality formatives in Bantu languages like Chasu, Lucazi, Lusamia, and Shiyeyi. Thus, the gist of this paper is the articulation of semantic classification of verbs in Kiswahili based on the selection of TAM types. This is because the sem...
متن کاملA Common Ontology of Agent Communication Languages: Modelling Mental Attitudes and Social Commitments using Roles
There are two main traditions in defining a semantics for agent communication languages, based either on mental attitudes or on social commitments. These traditions, even if they share the idea of speech acts as operators with preconditions and effects, and agents playing roles like speaker and hearer, rely on completely distinct ontologies. Not only does the mental attitudes approach refer to ...
متن کاملVerifiable Semantics for Agent Communication Languages
This paper examines the issue of developing semantics for agent communication languages. In particular, it considers the problem of giving a verifiable semantics for such languages — a semantics where conformance (or otherwise) to the semantics could be determined by an independent observer. These problems are precisely defined in an abstract formal framework. Using this framework, a number of ...
متن کاملExtending the Operational Semantics of a BDI Agent-Oriented Programming Language for Introducing Speech-Act Based Communication
Work on agent communication languages has since long striven to achieve adequate speech act semantics; partly, the problem is that references to an agent’s architecture (in particular a BDI-like architecture) would be required in giving such semantics more rigorously. On the other hand, BDI agent-oriented programming languages have had their semantics formalised for an abstract versions only, n...
متن کاملSemantics of Agent Communication Languages for Group Interaction
Group communication is the core of societal interactions. Therefore, artificial agents should be able to communicate with groups as well as individuals. However, most contemporary agent communication languages, notably FIPA and KQML, have either no provision or no well-defined semantics for group communication. We give a semantics for group communication that we believe can profitably enrich th...
متن کامل