Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
PhD dissertation 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

PhD dissertation 2010

295
views

Published on

Actual trends in software development are pushing the need to face a multiplicity of diverse activities and interaction styles characterizing complex and distributed application domains, in such a way …

Actual trends in software development are pushing the need to face a multiplicity of diverse activities and interaction styles characterizing complex and distributed application domains, in such a way that the resulting dynamics exhibits some grade of order, i.e. in terms of evolution of the system and desired equilibrium. Autonomous agents and Multiagent Systems are argued in literature as one of the most immediate approaches for describing such a kind of challenges. Actually, agent research seems to converge towards the definition of renewed abstraction tools aimed at better capturing the new demands of open systems. Besides agents, which are assumed as autonomous entities purposing a series of design objectives, Multiagent Systems account new notions as first-class entities, aimed, above all, at modeling institutional/organizational entities, placed for normative regulation, interaction and teamwork management, as well as environmental entities, placed as resources to further support and regulate agent work.
The starting point of this thesis is recognizing that both organizations and en- vironments can be rooted in a unifying perspective. Whereas recent research in agent systems seems to account a set of diverse approaches to specifically face with at least one aspect within the above mentioned, this work aims at proposing a unifying approach where both agents and their organizations can be straightforwardly situated in properly designed working environments. In this line, this work pursues reconciliation of environments with sociality, social interaction with environment based interaction, environmental resources with organizational func- tionalities with the aim to smoothly integrate the various aspects of complex and situated organizations in a coherent programming approach. Rooted in Agents and Artifacts (A&A) meta-model, which has been recently introduced both in the context of agent oriented software engineering and programming, the thesis pro- motes the notion of Embodied Organizations, characterized by computational infrastructures attaining a seamless integration between agents, organizations and environmental entities.

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
295
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Designing and Programming for Agents situated inArtifact-based Organizational Infrastructures for Agents Environments Piunti, M. situated in Artifact-based Environments European PhDIntroductionObjectivesA unifyingapproach to Michele PiuntiMAS michele.piunti@unibo.itProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations A LMA M ATER S TUDIORUMImplementation Università di Bologna – DEISConclusions Bologna April 30th , 2010 1 / 56
  • 2. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures European PhD for Agents situated inArtifact-based Co-Tutor Environments Tutor • prof. Alessandro Ricci Piunti, M. • prof. Antonio Natali • prof. Andrea OmiciniIntroductionObjectives ReviewersA unifyingapproach to • Mehdi Dastani (Utrecht University - Utrecht, Netherlands)MASProgramming • Juan Antonio Rodriguez Aguilar (AI Research Institute - Barcelona,Embodied Spain)OrganizationsImplementationConclusions Collaborations • Istituto Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione - I.S.T.C. - C.N.R., Roma. • G2I Group - Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines, St-Etienne - France. 2 / 56
  • 3. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Outline for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. 1 IntroductionIntroductionObjectives 2 ObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS 3 A unifying approach to MAS ProgrammingProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations 4 Embodied OrganizationsImplementationConclusions 5 Implementation 6 Conclusions 3 / 56
  • 4. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Introduction for Agents situated in Challenges of current IT systems:Artifact-based Environments Piunti, M. Open SystemsIntroduction • Heterogeneous entities interacting at runtime;Objectives • Entering and leaving the system directed by differentA unifying interests/objectives.approach toMAS Complex SystemsProgrammingEmbodied • Complex structure, multiple functionalities;OrganizationsImplementation • Global dynamics derive from local ones.Conclusions Taking an Organizational Perspective • Human organizations as a suitable model to build computational systems • Multi-Agent Organizations [Ferber et al., 2003, Gasser, 2001, Boissier et al., 2006, Dignum, 2009, Coutinho et al., 2009]. 4 / 56
  • 5. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Multi Agent Systems (MAS) for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Agent Piunti, M. “An agent is a computer system that is situated in some environmentIntroduction and that is capable of autonomous action in this environment in orderObjectives to meet its design objective.” [Wooldridge and Jennings, 1995]A unifying Organizationsapproach toMASProgramming “...can be understood as complex entities where a multitude of agents interact, within a structured environment aiming at some globalEmbodied purpose.” [Dignum, 2009]OrganizationsImplementation EnvironmentsConclusions First class abstraction containing those resources not modellable as agents [Weyns et al., 2007] 5 / 56
  • 6. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Multi Agent Systems (MAS) for Agents situated in AgentArtifact-based Environments “An agent is a computer system that is situated in some environment and that is capable of autonomous action in this environment in order Piunti, M. to meet its design objective.” [Wooldridge and Jennings, 1995]Introduction OrganizationsObjectives “...can be understood as complex entities where a multitude of agentsA unifying interact, within a structured environment aiming at some globalapproach toMAS purpose.” [Dignum, 2009]Programming EnvironmentsEmbodiedOrganizations First class abstraction containing those resources not modellable as agents [Weyns et al., 2007]Implementation INTERNALConclusions BELIEFS EVENTS ROLES GOALS PLANS MISSIONS DUTIES ACTIONS ? DEONTIC RELATIONS PERCEPTIONS NORMS SANCTIONS/REWARDS AGENTS ORGANIZATIONS RESOURCES LEGACY SERVICES COMPONENTS ENVIRONMENTS 6 / 56
  • 7. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures MAS Programming for Agents situated in Agent ProgrammingArtifact-based Environments Jason [Bordini et al., 2007], Jadex [Pokahr et al., 2005], 2APL [Dastani, 2008], etc. Piunti, M.Introduction Organization Programming: platforms and approachesObjectivesA unifying AGR/M AD K IT [Ferber et al., 2003], PowerJade [Baldoni et al., 2008], Electronicapproach to Institutions [Esteva et al., 2004], S-M OISE + [Hübner et al., 2005], O PERAMASProgramming [Dignum, 2003], etc.EmbodiedOrganizations Environment ProgrammingImplementation MASQ, AGRE [Stratulat et al., 2009, Báez-Barranco et al., 2006], NormativeConclusions Objects [Okuyama et al., 2009], Situated Electronic Institutions [Campos et al., 2008], etc. A seamless integration of entities and mechanisms is still needed 7 / 56
  • 8. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures for Agents situated in 1 IntroductionArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. 2 ObjectivesIntroductionObjectivesA unifying 3 A unifying approach to MAS Programmingapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodied 4 Embodied OrganizationsOrganizationsImplementationConclusions 5 Implementation 6 Conclusions 8 / 56
  • 9. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Outline for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. 1 IntroductionIntroductionObjectives 2 ObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS 3 A unifying approach to MAS ProgrammingProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations 4 Embodied OrganizationsImplementationConclusions 5 Implementation 6 Conclusions 9 / 56
  • 10. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Objectives for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. To embody organizations within the agents’Introduction environmentObjectives • To provide unifying approach to MAS programmingA unifyingapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizationsImplementationConclusions 10 / 56
  • 11. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Objectives for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. To embody organizations within the agents’Introduction environmentObjectives • To provide unifying approach to MAS programmingA unifyingapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodied Several outcomes at an application level:Organizations • To reconcile agents and their work environments with institutionalImplementation dimensions (i.e. organizations);Conclusions • To exploit a strong notion of agency, i.e., mental attitudes (purposes, knowledge), events, perception • Interoperability and Openess 11 / 56
  • 12. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Chosen Approach for Agents situated in In human organizations infrastruc- EnvironmentArtifact-based Infrastructures Environments tures are explicitely conceived for Artifacts Piunti, M. easing complex activities/tasks.Introduction Cross disciplinary approach:Objectives • Intelligent use of Space [Kirsh, 1995]A unifyingapproach to • Theory of Social ActionsMAS [Castelfranchi, 1998]Programming Patient AgentsEmbodied Environments are instrumented with Staff AgentsOrganizations specific Infrastructures Staff AgentImplementation VisitorConclusions Aiding purposes, easing agent works Agents To provide a set of coherent Infrastructures instrumenting environments for implementing Organizations and Environments [Piunti et al., 2009a, Piunti et al., 2009b] 12 / 56
  • 13. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Outline for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. 1 IntroductionIntroductionObjectives 2 ObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS 3 A unifying approach to MAS ProgrammingProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations 4 Embodied OrganizationsImplementationConclusions 5 Implementation 6 Conclusions 13 / 56
  • 14. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Unifying approach to MAS for Agents situated in ProgrammingArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M.Introduction A-E AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMASProgramming A-O O-EEmbodiedOrganizations ORGANIZATIONImplementationConclusions 14 / 56
  • 15. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Unifying approach to MAS for Agents situated in ProgrammingArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M.Introduction A-E AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMASProgramming A-O O-EEmbodiedOrganizations ORGANIZATIONImplementationConclusions 15 / 56
  • 16. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Environment Programming for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. A&A meta-model for MAS [Omicini et al., 2008] :Introduction Agents Autonomous andObjectives self-interested entitiesA unifyingapproach to encapsulating theirMAS control.Programming Artifacts Non-autonomous ArtifactsEmbodiedOrganizations entities.Implementation Workspaces Virtual containers of AgentsConclusions agents and artifacts, defining the topology Hospital workspace and the properties of the environment. 16 / 56
  • 17. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Artifact Metamodel for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments OBSERVABLE update Observable EVENTS GENERATION Property OBSERVABLE Piunti, M. name <EvName,Params> ObsPropName Value PROPERTIES value ObsPropName Value ManualIntroduction 1 functions ... ... operating instructionsObjectives OPERATION X Usage Interface OpControlName(Params) 1 1 Usage ControlA unifying Artifact Interface USAGE OpControlName(Params) nameapproach to params INTERFACE OPERATION Y ...MAS triggerProgramming control Operation generate ObservableEmbodied Event ARTIFACTOrganizations LINK MANUAL INTERFACEImplementationConclusions Usage Interface and Observable Properties • Basic building block for decentralized MAS environments • “Object” at an agent level of abstraction 17 / 56
  • 18. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Model for A-E Interactions for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. A-E AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTIntroductionObjectivesA unifying A-O O-Eapproach toMASProgramming ORGANIZATIONEmbodiedOrganizationsImplementationConclusions Actions and Perceptions • Native capabilities of agents; • Addressed at artifacts (and workspaces) functionalities 18 / 56
  • 19. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Agent-Artifact Interaction for Agents situated in MetamodelArtifact-based Environments update Observable perceive Piunti, M. Property observe name value ManualIntroduction 1 functions consult operatingObjectives instructions Usage InterfaceA unifying Work 1 1 Usage Control use Artifact Agent Environment Interface nameapproach to paramsMAS triggerProgramming control OperationEmbodied generate Observable perceive EventOrganizationsImplementation join Workspace quitConclusions Pragmatic and Epistemic Actions • Agent-Environment (A-E) interactions are based on the notion of: Usage and Perception [Piunti and Ricci, 2008] 19 / 56
  • 20. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures CArtAgO Infrastructure for Agents situated inArtifact-based makeArtifact Environments payments Piunti, M. focus pay useIntroduction BillingMachineObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS Hospital WorkspaceProgramming AgentEmbodied + Bridge Platform(s) (i.e. c4Jason, CArtAgO nodeOrganizations c4Jadex)ImplementationConclusions Orthogonality Improved repertoire of agent’s actions: • .joinWorkspace • Heterogeneous agents (Jason, • .makeArtifact Jadex) work in artifact based • .lookupArtifacts environments; • . ... • .use • Integration technologies (bridges) • .observeProperty [Piunti et al., 2008, Ricci et al., 2009]. • .focus 20 / 56
  • 21. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Environment Management for Agents situated in InfrastructuresArtifact-based Environments Hospital Scenario Piunti, M.IntroductionObjectives Artifacts are viewed as a set of re-A unifying sources exploitable by agents STAFFapproach to • Goal Oriented InteractionMASProgramming • Externalisation STAFF visits sendBill signDocEmbodied • Coordination sendFee Terminal signPatOrganizations SurgeryTablet EMIImplementation ENVIRONMENT ARTIFACTS For instance in Jason: payments reservations VISITORConclusions pay bookVisit +!execute_pay VISITOR BillingMachine Desk : artifact_id(billing, BmId) Hospital Workspace & payment(Params) Agent <- cartago.use(BmId, pay(Params), Platforms Receipt). 21 / 56
  • 22. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Organization Programming for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M.Introduction A-EObjectives AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTA unifyingapproach toMASProgramming A-O O-EEmbodiedOrganizationsImplementation ORGANIZATIONConclusions 22 / 56
  • 23. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures M OISE Model for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M.Introduction Organization is specified by defining a set of dimensionsObjectives [Hübner et al., 2007]1 :A unifyingapproach toMASProgramming Structural Roles, Groups, RelationshipsEmbodiedOrganizations Functional Goals, Missions, deadlines (time-to-fulfill)Implementation Deontic Norms, ObligationsConclusions 1 For the adoption of M OISE we would thank the G2I group at Ecole des Mines, St-Etienne. 23 / 56
  • 24. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Hospital Scenario: Structural for Agents situated in dimensionArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. Visitor StaffIntroduction 0..1Objectives Escort Patient Doctor 0..1 1..1 1..1A unifyingapproach to Visit StaffMAS Group GroupProgramming 0..NVMAX Surgery Room 1..1 GroupEmbodiedOrganizations LEGEND LINKS INTRA-GROUP EXTRA-GROUPImplementation inheritance min..max acquaintance compositionConclusions communication ROLE authority GROUP ABS compatibility ROLE (a) Structural Specification in Moise in the Hospital Scenario 24 / 56
  • 25. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Hospital Scenario: Functional for Agents situated in dimensionArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. visitorSch monitorSchIntroduction visitor monitor scheme schemeObjectivesA unifying mVisit mVisit visit mStaff mVisit enforcementapproach to enter book observe exitMAS the room the visit [5 minutes]Programming mPatient mPay do the pay mRew mSanEmbodied visit visit send send [30 minutes] [30 minutes] bill feeOrganizations [1 day] [1 day]Implementation docSch mDoc LEGENDConclusions Doctor mDoc scheme missions visit goal patient [TTF] sequence choice parallelism [30 minutes] (b) Functional Specification in Moise 25 / 56
  • 26. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Hospital Scenario: Deontic for Agents situated in dimensionArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M.IntroductionObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizationsImplementation (c) Deontic Specification in MoiseConclusions Controlling agent’s autonomy with Norms • Organization prescribes a set of norms (obligations, prohibitions permissions); • Agents may decide to violate norms; • Once a norm is violated the organization configuration has to be updated 26 / 56
  • 27. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Organization Management for Agents situated in InfrastructuresArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. • ORA4MAS [Hübner et al., 2009] OMI is composed by a set of artifacts providing agents with organizational functions;Introduction • Artifact initialized with the M OISE specificationObjectivesA unifying • Define also A-Oapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodied Norm violations are relevant ESCORTOrganizationsImplementation events stored as artifact events GroupBoardsConclusions OMI ORGANISATIONAL ARTIFACTS For instance in Jason: +!commit_mission(M) VISITOR SchemeBoards : artifact_id(sch, SchId) Hospital VISITOR <- cartago.use(SchId, Workspace commitMission(M)). Agent Platforms 27 / 56
  • 28. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Outline for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. 1 IntroductionIntroductionObjectives 2 ObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS 3 A unifying approach to MAS ProgrammingProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations 4 Embodied OrganizationsImplementationConclusions 5 Implementation 6 Conclusions 28 / 56
  • 29. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Embodied Organizations for Agents situated inArtifact-based A-E Environments AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENT Piunti, M. A-O O-EIntroductionObjectives ORGANIZATIONA unifyingapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizationsImplementationConclusions 29 / 56
  • 30. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Embodied Organizations for Agents situated inArtifact-based A-E Environments AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENT Piunti, M. A-O O-EIntroductionObjectives ORGANIZATIONA unifyingapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodied EMIOrganizations ENVIRONMENTImplementation STAFF ARTIFACTS STAFF E-O Integration TerminalConclusions GroupBoards SurgeryTablet • To transer events and changes OMI ORGANISATIONAL ARTIFACTS occurring inside environment to SchemeBoards the organization VISITOR BillingMachine Desk • and the other way Hospital VISITOR Workspace Agent Platforms 30 / 56
  • 31. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Constitutive Rules for Agents situated in Constitutive Rules [Searle, 1964]Artifact-based Environments • Typical of human societies (Social Reality [Searle, 1997] ) Piunti, M. • The reification of a state in a particular context may constitute theIntroduction realization of a particular institutional/organizational factObjectives count-asA unifyingapproach toMAS Environment count-as OrganisationProgramming Management Management Infrastructure InfrastructureEmbodied AgentsOrganizations enactImplementationConclusions • Used to automate particular dynamics between E-O: 31 / 56
  • 32. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Constitutive Rules for Agents situated in Constitutive Rules [Searle, 1964]Artifact-based Environments • Typical of human societies (Social Reality [Searle, 1997] ) Piunti, M. • The reification of a state in a particular context may constitute theIntroduction realization of a particular institutional/organizational factObjectives count-asA unifyingapproach toMAS Environment count-as OrganisationProgramming Management Management Infrastructure InfrastructureEmbodied AgentsOrganizations enactImplementationConclusions • Used to automate particular dynamics between E-O: • “Entering an ambulatory room count-as adopting the role patient” • “Finalizing the payment operation on the billing machine count-as achieving the goal pay” • “A sold out in the visit schedule enact the suspension of the booking service” 32 / 56
  • 33. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Embodied Organization for Agents situated in MetamodelArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. O-E functional relationships defined by Constitutive RulesIntroduction based on Events:ObjectivesA unifying Environment Event Eventapproach toMAS Ev Type Ev Value OrganizationProgramming EventEmbodied TriggersOrganizations Constitutive 1..nImplementation Rule Embodied Organization (Emb-Org-Rule) ProducesConclusions Count-as Enact Rule Rule 33 / 56
  • 34. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Outline for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. 1 IntroductionIntroductionObjectives 2 ObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS 3 A unifying approach to MAS ProgrammingProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations 4 Embodied OrganizationsImplementationConclusions 5 Implementation 6 Conclusions 34 / 56
  • 35. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Formal Model for Agents situated inArtifact-based Implementing Emb-Org-Rules implies to re-engineer Environments CArtAgO by indruducing: Piunti, M. Workspace EventsIntroduction Workspace rulesObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS MAS = WsProgramming Ws = { wsn , Ag, Ar , Art, Ev , M, R, t }EmbodiedOrganizations Ag = { agid , ags , agEv , agpr }Implementation Ar = { arid , art , I, O, P, V }Conclusions Table: Structures inside a MAS (implemented by CArtAgO) Formal model described by a transition system in the thesis 35 / 56
  • 36. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Workspace Events for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Ws = Ag, Ar , Art, Ev, M, R, t Piunti, M.Introduction CArtAgO Workspace EventsObjectives Are records of significant changes in theA unifying application domain (i.e., state/processes).approach toMAS 1 Can be perceived by agents focusingProgramming artifactsEmbodied Workspace KernelOrganizations WORKSPACE 2 Can be collected and ranked at the EVENTS ( Ev ) R Art MImplementation workspace levelConclusions ev = evt , evv Event pairs (type, value) from Observable Properties and from Operations Execution 36 / 56
  • 37. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Workspace Rules for Agents situated in Ws = Ag, Ar , Art, Ev , M, R, tArtifact-based CArtAgO Workspace Environments Legend AGENT Piunti, M. Needed to specify rules governing ARTIFACTIntroduction intra-workspace dynamics OBSERVABLE PROPERTY OPERATION LINK OPERATIONObjectives ACTION PERCEPTIONA unifyingapproach to Workspace as a WORKSPACE LAWS ( R ) Ev Workspace Kernel Art M LINK WS OPERATORMASProgramming programmable entityEmbodiedOrganizationsImplementation Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules: “when ev in the context c apply a”Conclusions • +ev : c → a • ev ∈ Ev • c refers to observable states ∈ Ar • a refers to a set of workspace operators 37 / 56
  • 38. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Workspace Rules for Agents situated in Ws = Ag, Ar , Art, Ev , M, R, tArtifact-based CArtAgO Workspace Environments Legend AGENT Piunti, M. Needed to specify rules governing ARTIFACTIntroduction intra-workspace dynamics OBSERVABLE PROPERTY OPERATION LINK OPERATIONObjectives ACTION PERCEPTIONA unifyingapproach to Workspace as a WORKSPACE LAWS ( R ) Ev Workspace Kernel Art M LINK WS OPERATORMASProgramming programmable entityEmbodiedOrganizations Basic Workspace Operators:Implementation Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules: “when ev in the context c apply a” (1) applyOp(arid , opname [, Params])Conclusions • +ev : c → a (2) applyLop(arid , opname [, Params]) (3) make(arid , artn [, Params]) • ev ∈ Ev (4) dispose(arid ) • c refers to observable states (5) disable(arid [, agid ] {, opname }) ∈ Ar (6) enable(arid [, agid ] {, opname }) • a refers to a set of workspace (7) exclude(agid ) operators (8) include(agid ) 38 / 56
  • 39. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Hospital Scenario: EMI for Agents situated in visitorSch monitorSchArtifact-based visitor monitor Environments scheme scheme Piunti, M. mVisit mVisit visit mStaff mVisit enforcement enter book observeIntroduction the room the visit exitObjectives mPatient mPay do the pay mRew mSan visit visit send sendA unifying bill feeapproach to joinWorkspace use use focusMAS Hospital Desk BillingMachine Desk,Programming bookVisit pay BillingMachine use use use quitWorkspaceEmbodied SurgeryTablet Terminal Terminal Hospital signPat sendBill sendFeeOrganizations docSch DoctorImplementation scheme Hospital visits reservations Workspace signDocConclusions bookVisit signPat mDoc visit Desk SurgeryTablet patient payments sendBill pay sendFee use SurgeryTablet ENVIRONMENT signDoc MANAGEMENT BillingMachine Terminal INFRASTRUCTURE 39 / 56
  • 40. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Hospital Scenario: Count-as for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Count-As Rules Piunti, M. An event occurring in the system may “count-as” an institutional event and automatically update the organizationIntroductionObjectives +join_req(Ag)A unifying +ws_leaved(Ag) -> make("visitorGroupBoard",approach to -> apply("visitorGroupBoard", "OMI.GroupBoard",MAS leaveRole(Ag, "patient")). ["moise/hospital.xml","visitGroup"]);Programming make("visitorSchBoard", +op_completed("BillingMachine", "OMI.SchemeBoard",Embodied Ag, pay) ["moise/hospital.xml","visitorSch"]);Organizations -> apply("visitorSchBoard", apply("visitorGroupBoard", setGoalAchieved(Ag, pay_visit)).Implementation adoptRole(Ag, "patient")); include(Ag).Conclusions +op_completed("Terminal", +op_completed("visitorGroupBoard", _, Ag, sendFee) adoptRole(Ag, "patient")) -> apply("monitorSchBoard", -> apply("visitorSchBoard", setGoalAchieved(Ag, send_fee)). commitMission(Ag, "mPat")). Figure: Example of count-as rules in the Hospital scenario. 40 / 56
  • 41. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Hospital Scenario: Enact for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. Enact RulesIntroduction Organization may produce a control by enacting changes upon theObjectives environment (i.e., to promote equilibrium, avoid undesiderable states).A unifyingapproach toMAS +signal("monitorSchBoard",Programming goal_non_compliance, +signal("visitorGroupBoard", obligation(Ag,Embodied role_cardinality, visitor) ngoa(monitorSch,mRew,send_bill),Organizations : true achieved(monitorSch,send_bill,Ag), -> disable("Desk", bookVisit). TTF)Implementation : true -> exclude(Ag).Conclusions Figure: Example of enact rules in the hospital scenario. 41 / 56
  • 42. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Outline for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M. 1 IntroductionIntroductionObjectives 2 ObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMAS 3 A unifying approach to MAS ProgrammingProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations 4 Embodied OrganizationsImplementationConclusions 5 Implementation 6 Conclusions 42 / 56
  • 43. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Conclusions for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments An unifying approach to MAS programming Piunti, M. • Embodied Organization;Introduction • No need for agents to bring about organizational notions;Objectives • Environment infrastructures succeed to mediate between agentsA unifyingapproach to and organizations;MASProgramming • Global dynamics shaped on workspace events and transparentlyEmbodied handled by the system.OrganizationsImplementationConclusions 43 / 56
  • 44. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Conclusions for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments An unifying approach to MAS programming Piunti, M. • Embodied Organization;Introduction • No need for agents to bring about organizational notions;Objectives • Environment infrastructures succeed to mediate between agentsA unifyingapproach to and organizations;MASProgramming • Global dynamics shaped on workspace events and transparentlyEmbodied handled by the system.OrganizationsImplementation Limitations and Aspects we do not address (yet):Conclusions • Direct communication between agents (Agent-Agent interaction) through message passing (i.e. ACL) is not currently under the control of the organization. • Complex interaction patterns may result in many relationship to be specified between E-O. 44 / 56
  • 45. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Perspectives for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Ongoing and Furure Work: Piunti, M. • To generalize the mechanism of Workspace Laws and EmbodiedIntroduction Organization Rules defining a wide set of inter-system functionalObjectives relations (i.e. access control, security);A unifyingapproach to • To provide a general framweork for integrated MAS developmentMASProgrammingEmbodied Applications in future ICT:OrganizationsImplementation • Any scenario integrating artificial agents, devices, humans in theConclusions same application • Future Internet, Cloud Computing • Sociotechnical systems, pervasive computing • Virtualization, Electronic Marketplaces, etc. 45 / 56
  • 46. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Bibliography I for Agents situated in Báez-Barranco, J.-A., Stratulat, T., and Ferber, J. (2006).Artifact-based Environments A unified model for physical and social environments. In Environments for Multi-Agent Systems III, Third International Workshop Piunti, M. (E4MAS 2006), volume 4389 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 41–50. Springer.IntroductionObjectives Baldoni, M., Genovese, V., and van der Torre, L. (2008). Adding Organizations and Roles as primitives to the JADE framework.A unifyingapproach to In Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Normative MAS.MASProgramming Boissier, O., Hübner, J. F., and Sichman, J. S. (2006). Organization Oriented Programming: From Closed to Open Organizations.EmbodiedOrganizations In Engineering Societies for Agent Worlds (ESAW-2006). Extended and Revised version in Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS series,Implementation Springer, pages 86–105.Conclusions Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., and Wooldrige, M. (2007). Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. John Wiley & Sons. Campos, J., Lòopez-Sànchez, M., Rodrìguez-Aguilar, J. A., and Esteva, M. (2008). Formalising Situatedness and Adaptation in Electronic Institutions. In COIN-08, Proc. 46 / 56
  • 47. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Bibliography II for Agents situated inArtifact-based Castelfranchi, C. (1998). Environments Modeling Social Action for AI Agents. Piunti, M. Artificial Intelligence, 103:157–182.Introduction Coutinho, L. R., Sichman, J. S., and Boissier, O. (2009). Modeliling dimensions for agent organizations.Objectives In Dignum, V., editor, Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems:A unifying Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models. IGI-Global.approach toMAS Dastani, M. (2008).Programming 2APL: a practical agent programming language.Embodied Autonomous Agent and Multi-Agent Systems, 16:214–248.OrganizationsImplementation Dastani, M., Grossi, D., Meyer, J.-J. C., and Tinnemeier, N. A. M. (2008). Normative Multi-Agent Programs and Their Logics.Conclusions In Knowledge Representation for Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, First International Workshop, KRAMAS 2008, Sydney, Australia, Revised Selected Papers, volume 5605 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer. Dignum, M. V. F. d. A. J. G. (2003). A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, SIKS dissertation series 2004-1. 47 / 56
  • 48. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Bibliography III for Agents situated inArtifact-based Dignum, V., editor (2009). Environments Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics Piunti, M. of Organizational Models. IGI-Global.Introduction Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., Rosell, B., and L., J. (2004).Objectives AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions.A unifying In Jennings, N. R., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, L., and Tambe, M., editors,approach to Proceedings of International conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiMASProgramming Agent Systems (AAMAS’04), pages 236–243, New York. ACM.Embodied Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., and Michel, F. (2003).Organizations From Agents to Organizations: An Organizational View of Multi-agentImplementation Systems.Conclusions In Proceedings of (AOSE-03), volume 2935 of Lecture Notes Computer Science (LNCS). Springer. Gasser, L. (2001). Perspectives on Organizations in Multi-agent Systems. In Multi-Agent Systems and Applications, volume Vol. 2086 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–16. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA. 48 / 56
  • 49. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Bibliography IV for Agents situated inArtifact-based Hübner, J. F., Boissier, O., Kitio, R., and Ricci, A. (2009). Environments Instrumenting Multi-Agent Organisations with Organisational Artifacts and Piunti, M. Agents. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.IntroductionObjectives Hübner, J. F., Sichman, J. S., and Boissier, O. (2005). S-moise+ : A middleware for developing organised multi-agent systems.A unifyingapproach to In Boissier, O., Padget, J. A., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E. T.,MAS Ossowski, S., Sichman, J. S., and Vázquez-Salceda, J., editors,Programming Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Multi-Agent Systems,Embodied AAMAS 2005 International Workshops, volume 3913 of Lecture Notes inOrganizations Computer Science, pages 64–78. Springer.Implementation Hübner, J. F., Sichman, J. S., and Boissier, O. (2007).Conclusions Developing Organised Multi-Agent Systems Using the M OISE Model: Programming Issues at the System and Agent Levels. Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 1(3/4):370–395. Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73(1-2):31–68. 49 / 56
  • 50. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Bibliography V for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Okuyama, F. Y., Bordini, R. H., and da Rocha Costa, A. C. (2009). Piunti, M. A distributed normative infrastructure for situated multi-agent organisations. In Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VI, volume 5397 ofIntroduction Lecture Notes Computer Science (LNCS). Springer.Objectives Omicini, A., Ricci, A., and Viroli, M. (2008).A unifying Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems.approach to Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 17 (3).MASProgramming Piunti, M. and Ricci, A. (2008).Embodied From Agents to Artifacts Back and Forth: Purposive and Doxastic use ofOrganizations Artifacts in MAS.Implementation In Proceedings of Sixth European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS-08), Bath, UK.Conclusions Piunti, M., Ricci, A., Boissier, O., and Hübner, J. F. (2009a). Embodied Organisations in MAS Environments. In Braubach, L., van der Hoek, W., Petta, P., and Pokahr, A., editors, MATES, volume 5774 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 115–127. Springer. 50 / 56
  • 51. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Bibliography VI for Agents situated inArtifact-based Piunti, M., Ricci, A., Boissier, O., and Hübner, J. F. (2009b). Environments Embodying Organisations in Multi-agent Work Environments. Piunti, M. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT 2009), pagesIntroduction 511–518, Milan, Italy. IEEE.Objectives Piunti, M., Ricci, A., Braubach, L., and Pokahr, A. (2008).A unifying Goal-directed Interactions in Artifact-Based MAS: Jadex Agents playing inapproach to CArtAgO Environments.MAS In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence andProgramming Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT 2008), Sydney, NSW, Australia.EmbodiedOrganizations Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., and Lamersdorf, W. (2005). Jadex: A BDI Reasoning Engine.Implementation In Bordini, R. H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., and Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. E., editors,Conclusions Multi-Agent Programming, volume 15 of Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, pages 149–174. Springer. Ricci, A., Piunti, M., Viroli, M., and Omicini, A. (2009). Environment programming in CArtAgO. In Bordini, R. H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., and El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A., editors, Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications, Vol. 2, pages 259–288. Springer. 51 / 56
  • 52. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Bibliography VII for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Searle, J. R. (1964). Piunti, M. Speech Acts, chapter What is a Speech Act? Cambridge University Press.Introduction Searle, J. R. (1997).Objectives The Construction of Social Reality.A unifying Free Press.approach toMAS Stratulat, T., Ferber, J., and Tranier, J. (2009).Programming MASQ: Towards an Integral Approach of Agent-Based Interaction.Embodied In Proc. of 8th Conf. on Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS-09).Organizations Weyns, D., Omicini, A., and Odell, J. J. (2007).Implementation Environment as a first-class abstraction in multi-agent systems.Conclusions Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 14(1):5–30. Special Issue on Environments for Multi-agent Systems. Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152. 52 / 56
  • 53. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Designing and Programming for Agents situated inArtifact-based Organizational Infrastructures for Agents Environments Piunti, M. situated in Artifact-based Environments European PhDIntroductionObjectivesA unifyingapproach to Michele PiuntiMAS michele.piunti@unibo.itProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations A LMA M ATER S TUDIORUMImplementation Università di Bologna – DEISConclusions Bologna April 30th , 2010 53 / 56
  • 54. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Situated Organizations for Agents situated in • MASQ, AGRE [Stratulat et al., 2009, Báez-Barranco et al., 2006]: integrateArtifact-based different dimensions (agents, environment, interactions, organizations and Environments institutions) into an integral view; Piunti, M. • Distributed normative infrastructures: “normative places” and “normative objects”, reactive entities inspectable by agents and containing readableIntroduction information about norms [Okuyama et al., 2009].Objectives • Situated Electronic Institutions [Campos et al., 2008]: governor entitiesA unifying allow to bridge environmental structures by instrumenting environments withapproach toMAS embodied devices controlled by the institutional apparatus.Programming • Constitutive rules [Searle, 1997] to bridge the gap between environmentEmbodiedOrganizations and institutional dimensions:Implementation • The reification of a particular state in a normative place may constitute the realization of a particular institutional fact (e.g., “beingConclusions on a car driver seat makes an agent to play the role driver”) [Okuyama et al., 2009]. • “Normative artifact” as a container of institutional facts (facts related to the institutional states), and brute facts (states related to the concrete workplace where agents dwell) [Dastani et al., 2008]. “Count-as” and “sanctioning” rules allows the infrastructure to recast brute facts to institutional ones and provide normative control. 54 / 56
  • 55. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Syntax of Workspace Rules for Agents situated inArtifact-based Environments Piunti, M.IntroductionObjectivesA unifyingapproach toMASProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizationsImplementationConclusions 55 / 56
  • 56. Designing and ProgrammingOrganizationalInfrastructures Regimentation and Enforcement for Agents situated inArtifact-based Organisational Regimentation done by Artifacts Environments EOA+OA Piunti, M. mechanisms used byIntroduction Enforcement done by detectionObjectives evaluationA unifying done by Staffapproach to done by Agent judgementMASProgrammingEmbodiedOrganizations • Regimentation is done by enabling and disablingImplementation operation controls (uic) on environment artifactsConclusions (visitDoor) • This enables or prevents the use of artifacts (CArtAgO implements RBAC) • Enforcement is done (by staff/organizational agents) by using special artifacts (i.e. the terminal to send fines, the phone to call police, etc.) 56 / 56

×