7 - Programming Languages for Multiagent Systems

Programming Languages for Multiagent Systems Multiagent Systems LM Sistemi Multiagente LM Andrea Omicini andrea.omicini@unibo.it Ingegneria Due Alma Mater Studiorum—Università di Bologna a Cesena Academic Year 2010/2011 Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 1 / 49 Outline 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 2 / 49 Spaces for PL in SE Paradigm Shifts Outline 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 3 / 49 Spaces for PL in SE Paradigm Shifts Paradigm Shifts in Software Engineering New classes of programming languages New classes of programming languages come from paradigm shifts in Software Engineeringa new meta-models / new ontologies for artificial systems build up new spaces new spaces have to be “filled” by some suitably-shaped new (class of) programming languages, incorporating a suitable and coherent set of new abstractions The typical procedure first, existing languages are “stretched” far beyond their own limits, and become cluttered with incoherent abstractions and mechanisms then, academical languages covering only some of the issues are proposed finally, new well-founded languages are defined, which cover new spaces adequately and coherently a SE here is taken in its broadest acceptation as the science of building software system, rather than the strange “theoretically practical” discipline you find at ICSE. . . Otherwise, one may easily see the thing the other way round Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 4 / 49 Spaces for PL in SE Paradigm Shifts The Problem of PL & SE Today Things are running too fast New classes of programming languages emerge too fast from the needs of real-world software engineering However, technologies (like programming language frameworks) require a reasonable amount of time (and resources, in general) to be suitably developed and stabilised, before they are ready for SE practise → Most of the time, SE practitioners have to work with languages (and frameworks) they know well, but which do not support (or, incoherently / insufficiently support) required abstractions & mechanisms → This makes methodologies more and more important with respect to technologies, since they can help covering the “abstraction gap” in technologies Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 5 / 49 Spaces for PL in SE Examples Outline 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 6 / 49 Spaces for PL in SE Examples An Example: CORBA & Distributed Objects OOP technologies moving too slow As soon as OOP moved out of academia to enter SE practises, new needs had already emerged Distribution of software applications required new solutions, and created new spaces for programming languages Distributed objects were the first answer, and distributed infrastructures like CORBA were developed On the one hand, new (classes of) languages like IDL were introduced On the other hand, the development of a stable & reliable technology was so slow, that the first “usable” CORBA implementation (3.0) came too late, and never established itself as the standard reference technology Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 7 / 49 Spaces for PL in SE Examples Another Example: Java & Web Technologies What is the standard framework for distributed systems today? Java, for distributed objects The Web, for most distributed applications None of them, however, was born for this Java was born as a programming language today Java is typically conceived as a platform, or a distributed framework The Web was born as a mere concept, implemented via HTML pages, server & browsers today the Web is a sort of cluster of related technologies in ultra-fast growth Both of them suffer from a lack of conceptual coherence in Java, syntax and basic language mechanisms are the only glue in Web technologies, the client / server pattern is the only unifying model conceptual integrity is lost in principle Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 8 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming Agents Outline 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 9 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming Agents The Agent Abstraction MAS programming languages have agent as a fundamental abstraction An agent programming language should support one (or more) agent definition(s) so, straightforwardly supporting mobility in case of mobile agents, intelligence somehow in case of intelligent agents, . . . , by means of well-defined language constructs Required agent features play a fundamental role in defining language constructs Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 10 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming Agents Agent Architectures MAS programming languages support agent architectures Agents have (essential) features, but they are built around an agent architecture, which defines both its internal structure, and its functioning An agent programming language should support one (or more) agent architecture(s) e.g., the BDI (Belief, Desire, Intention) architecture [Rao and Georgeff, 1991] agent architectures will follow soon Agent architectures influence possible agent features Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 11 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming Agents Agent Observable Behaviour MAS programming languages support agent model of action Agents act through either communication or pragmatical actions Altogether, these two sorts of action define the admissible space for agent’s observable behaviour a communication language defines how agents speak to each other a “language of pragmatical actions” should define how an agent can act over its environment A full-fledged agent language should account for both languages so little work on languages of pragmatical actions, however Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 12 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming Agents Agent Behaviour Agent computation vs. agent interaction / coordination Agents have both an internal behaviour and an observable, external behaviour this reproduce the “computation vs. interaction / coordination” dichotomy of standard programming languages computation the inner functioning of a computational component interaction actions determining the observable behaviour of a computational component so, what is new here? Agent autonomy is new the observable behaviour of an agent as a computational component is driven / governed by the agent itself e.g., intelligent agents do practical reasoning—reasoning about actions—so that computation “computes” over the interaction space—in short, agent coordination Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 13 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming Agents Agent (Programming) Languages Intra-agent languages, Inter-agent languages Agent programming languages should be either / both intra-agent languages languages to define (agent) computational behaviour inter-agent languages languages to define (agent) interactive behaviour Example: Agent Communication Languages (ACL) ACL are the easiest example of inter-agent languages they just define how agents speak with each other however, these languages may have some requirements on internal architecture / functioning of agents Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 14 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming Agents Agents Without Agent Languages What if we do not have an agent language available? For either theoretical or practical reasons, it may happen we may need an essential Prolog feature, or be required to use Java What we do need to do: (1) define adopt an agent definition, along with the agent’s required / desired features choose agent architecture accordingly, and according to the MAS needs define a model and the languages for agent actions, both communicative and pragmatical What we do need to do: (2) map map agent features, architecture, and action model / languages upon the existing abstractions, mechanisms & constructs of the language chosen thus building an agent abstraction layer over our non-agent language foundation Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 15 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming MAS Outline 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 16 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming MAS Programming the Interaction Space The space of MAS interaction Languages to interact roughly define the space of (admissible) MAS interaction Languages to interact should not be merely seen from the viewpoint of the individual agent (subjective viewpoint) The overall view on the space of (admissible) MAS interaction is the MAS engineer’s viewpoint (objective viewpoint) subjective vs. objective viewpoint over interaction [Schumacher, 2001, Omicini and Ossowski, 2003] Enabling / governing / constraining the space of MAS interaction A number of inter-disciplinary fields of study insist on the space of (system) interaction coordination organisation security Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 17 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming MAS Coordination Coordination in short Many different definitions around we will talk about this later on in this course—we need to simplify, here In short, coordination is managing / governing interaction in any possible way, from any viewpoint Coordination has a typical “dynamic” acceptation that is, enabling / governing interaction at execution time Coordination in MAS is even a more chaotic field again, a useful definition to harness the many different acceptations in the field is subjective vs. objective coordination—the agent’s vs. the engineer’s viewpoint over coordination [Schumacher, 2001, Omicini and Ossowski, 2003] Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 18 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming MAS Organisation Organisation in short Again, a not-so-clear and shared definition It mainly concerns the structure of a system it is mostly design-driven It affects and determines admissible / required interactions permissions / commitments / policies / violations / fines / rewards / ... Organisation is still enabling & ruling the space of MAS interaction but with a more “static”, structural flavour such that most people mix-up “static” and “organisation” improperly Organisation in MAS is first of all, a model of responsibilities and power typically based on the notion of role requiring a model of communicative & pragmatical actions e.g. RBAC-MAS [Omicini et al., 2005] Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 19 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming MAS Security Security in short You may not believe it, but also security means managing interaction you cannot see / do / say this, you can say / do / see that Typically, security has both “static” and “dynamic” flavours a design- plus a run-time acceptation But tends to enforce a “negative” interpretation over interaction “this is not allowed” It is then dual to both coordination and organisation So, in MAS at least, they should to be looked at altogether Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 20 / 49 Spaces for PL in MAS Programming MAS Coordination, Organisation & Security Governing interaction in MAS Coordination, organisation & security all mean managing (MAS) interaction They all are meant to shape the space of admissible MAS interactions to define its admissible space at design-time (organisation/security flavour) to govern its dynamics at run-time (coordination/security flavour) An overall view is then required could artifacts, and the A&A meta-model help on this? Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 21 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Generality Outline 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 22 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Generality MAS Interaction Space in the A&A Meta-model MAS interaction & A&A Agents speak with agents Agents use artifacts Artifacts link with artifacts Artifacts manifest to agents these four sentences completely describe interaction within a MAS in the A&A meta-model What about programming languages now? what about languages to be and languages to interact? Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 23 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Generality Programming Languages for Artifacts Artifacts as MAS computational entities Artifacts are computational entities with a computational (internal) behaviour and an interactive (observable) behaviour Artifact programming languages are required possibly covering both aspects to be artifact, and to interact with agents and other artifacts Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 24 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Generality Programming Languages for Artifacts: Computation Intra-agent languages for artifacts Artifact computational behaviour is reactive artifact languages should essentially be event-driven Artifacts belong to the agent interaction space within a MAS artifact languages should be able to compute over MAS interaction Given the prominence of interaction in computation, artifact languages are likely to embody both aspects altogether Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 25 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Generality Programming Languages for Artifacts: Interaction Inter-agent languages for artifacts Artifact interactive behaviour deals with agents and artifacts artifact languages should provide operations for agents to use them artifact languages should provide links for artifacts to link with them Artifacts work as mediators between agents and the environment artifact languages should be able to react to environment events, and to observe / compute over them In the overall, artifacts may subsume agent’s pragmatical actions, as well as environment’s events & change thus providing the basis for an engineering discipline of MAS interaction Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 26 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Generality Programming Languages for Artifacts: A&A Features A&A cognitional artifact features in languages An artifact language may deal with artifact’s usage interface An artifact language may deal with artifact’s operating instructions An artifact language may deal with artifact’s function description Other artifact features in languages An artifact language may allow an artifact to be inspectable, controllable, malleable/forgeable, linkable, . . . Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 27 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Generality Programming Languages for A&A Agents A&A agents deal with artifacts An agent programming language may deal with artifact’s usage interface for artifact use An agent programming language may deal with artifact’s operating instructions for practical reasoning about artifacts An agent programming language may deal with artifact’s function description for artifact selection Other features for agent programming languages An agent programming language may allow an A&A agent to inspect, control, forge, compose, . . . , artifacts of a MAS Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 28 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Outline 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 29 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Programming Languages for Artifacts: The Environment Artifacts & MAS Environment Artifacts are our conceptual tools to model, articulate and shape MAS environment to govern the agent interaction space to build up the agent workspace Artifacts for coordination, organisation & security Governing the interaction space essentially means coordination, organisation & security More or less the same holds for building agent workspace As a result, artifacts are our main places to model & engineer coordination, organisation & security in MAS Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 30 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Layering Agent Workspace A conceptual experiment A layered taxonomy [Molesini et al., 2006] Individual artifacts I E I handling a single agent’s interaction I S Social artifacts handling interaction among a number of agents / artifacts Environment artifacts E I S I handling interaction between MAS and the environment Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 31 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Artifacts for MAS Organisation / Security Individual artifacts Individual artifacts are the most natural place where to rule individual agent interaction within a MAS on the basis of organisational / security concerns If an individual artifact is the only way by which an agent can interact within a MAS organisation there, role, permissions, obligations, policies, etc., should be encapsulated security working as a filter for any perception / action / communication between the agent, MAS and the environment autonomy it could work as the harmoniser between the clashing needs of agent autonomy and MAS control boundaries it could be used as a criterion for determining whether an agent belongs to a MAS Our example: Agent Coordination Contexts (ACC) infrastructural abstraction associated to each agent entering a MAS Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 32 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Artifact Languages for MAS Organisation / Security Languages for individual artifacts Declarative languages (KR-style) for our “quasi static” perception of organisation Formal languages (like process algebras) for action / policy denotation Operational languages for modelling actions Our example: Agent Coordination Contexts (ACC) first-order logic (FOL) rules [Ricci et al., 2006a] process algebra denotation [Omicini et al., 2006] Declarative does not mean static, actually organisation structure may change at run-time agents might reason about (organisation) artifacts, and possibly adapt their own behaviour, or change organisation structures Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 33 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Artifacts for MAS Coordination Social artifacts Social artifacts are the most natural place where to rule social interaction within a MAS on the basis of (objective) coordination concerns Coordination policies could be distributed upon social artifacts, and there encapsulated inspectability there, coordination policies could be explicitly represented and made available for inspection controllability functioning of coordination engine could be controllable by engineers / agents malleability coordination policies could be amenable to change by agents / engineers Our example: Tuple Centres [Omicini and Denti, 2001] coordination abstractions for MAS coordination logic tuple centres for coordinative / awareness artifacts ReSpecT tuple centres for A&A [Omicini, 2007] Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 34 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Artifact Languages for MAS Coordination Languages for social artifacts Typically operational, event-driven languages for our “dynamic” perception of coordination interaction happens, the artifact has just to capture interaction and to react appropriately Our example: ReSpecT first-order logic (FOL) language semantics given operationally [Omicini, 2007] ongoing work on multiset rewriting semantics (with Maude) Operational does not mean static, too coordinative behaviour may change at run-time agents might reason about (coordination) artifacts, and possibly adapt their own behaviour, or change coordination policies Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 35 / 49 Spaces for PL in A&A Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security Artifacts for MAS Environment Environment artifacts Environment artifacts are the most natural place where to rule interaction between a MAS and its environment on the basis of artifact reactivity to change Spatio-temporal fabric as a source of events time time events for temporal concerns space spatial events for topological concerns Resources as sources of events and targets of actions like a database, or a temperature sensor Our (limited) example: Situated/Timed Tuple Centres [Omicini et al., 2007, Casadei and Omicini, 2009] coordination abstractions reactive to passing of time and external events Timed ReSpecT for time-aware coordination policies Situated ReSpecT for environment-related coordination policies Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 36 / 49 Cases of PL in MAS Agent Communication Languages (ACL) Speech acts Inspired by the work on human communication Communication based on direct exchange of messages between agents specifying agent communicative actions Speaking agent acts to change the world around in particular, to change the belief of another agent Every message has three fundamental parts performative the pragmatics of the communicative action content the syntax of the communicative action ontology the semantics of the communicative action Our examples, working as standard protocols for information exchange between agents KQML Knowledge Query Manipulation Language http://www.cs.umbc.edu/kqml/ [Labrou and Finin, 1997] FIPA ACL FIPA Agent Communication Language http://www.fipa.org/repository/aclspecs.html [FIPA ACL, 2002] Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 37 / 49 Cases of PL in MAS Agent Oriented Programming Languages (AOP) Programming languages for cognitive agents Mentalistic agents either BDI or other cognitive architectures Facilities and structures to represent internal knowledge, goals, . . . Architecture to implement practical reasoning Our examples 3APL Programming language for cognitive agents http://www.cs.uu.nl/3apl/ [Dastani et al., 2004, Dastani et al., 2005] Jason Java-based interpreter for an extended version of AgentSpeak(L) for programming BDI agents http://jason.sourceforge.net/ [Rao, 1996, Bordini and Hübner, 2006] Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 38 / 49 Cases of PL in MAS Artifact Programming Languages: Coordination Languages to program social / environment artifacts Our example: ReSpecT Programming language for cognitive agents http://respect.alice.unibo.it/ [Omicini, 2007, Omicini and Denti, 2001] Tuple centres as coordinative artifacts programmable tuple spaces encapsulating coordination policies Logic tuple centres as awareness artifacts ReSpecT tuple centres as social artifacts ReSpecT as the event-driven, logic-based language to program tuple centres behaviour Timed ReSpecT as an event-driven language to react to environment change Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 39 / 49 Cases of PL in MAS Artifact Programming Languages: Organisation / Security Languages to program individual artifacts Our example: Agent Coordination Context (ACC) individual artifact associated to each individual agent in a MAS filtering every interaction of its associated agent RBAC-MAS as the organisational model [Omicini et al., 2006] Languages for policy specification & enaction logic-based [Ricci et al., 2006a] process algebra [Omicini et al., 2005] Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 40 / 49 Cases of PL in MAS Non-Agent Programming Languages Building the agent abstraction layer Our examples Prolog programming logic agents in Prolog Java programming simple agents in Java: examples in TuCSoN Agents using artifacts Our examples tuProlog logic agents using ReSpecT tuple centres: examples in tuProlog http://tuprolog.apice.unibo.it/ [Denti et al., 2005] simpA extending Java towards A&A agents & artifacts: examples in simpA http://simpa.apice.unibo.it/ Java/TuCSoN simple Java agents using TuCSoN tuple centres and ACC http://tucson.apice.unibo.it/ Jason/CArtAgO Jason agents using CArtAgO artifacts http://cartago.apice.unibo.it/ [Ricci et al., 2006b, Ricci et al., 2007] Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 41 / 49 Conclusions 1 Spaces for Programming Languages in Software Engineering Paradigm Shifts Examples 2 Spaces for Programming Languages in Multiagent Systems Programming Agents Programming MAS 3 Spaces for Programming Languages in the A&A Meta-model Generality Environment, Coordination, Organisation & Security 4 Remarkable Cases of (Programming) Languages for Multiagent Systems Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 42 / 49 Conclusions Bibliography I Bordini, R. H. and Hübner, J. F. (2006). BDI agent programming in AgentSpeak using Jason (tutorial paper). In Toni, F. and Torroni, P., editors, Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, volume 3900 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 143–164. Springer. 6th International Workshop, CLIMA VI, London, UK, June 27-29, 2005. Revised Selected and Invited Papers. Casadei, M. and Omicini, A. (2009). Situated tuple centres in ReSpecT. In Shin, S. Y., Ossowski, S., Menezes, R., and Viroli, M., editors, 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2009), Honolulu, Hawai’i, USA. ACM. Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, B., Dignum, F., and Meyer, J.-J. C. (2004). A programming language for cognitive agents: Goal directed 3APL. In Dastani, M., Dix, J., and El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A., editors, Programming Multi-Agent Systems, volume 3067 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 111–130. Springer. 1st International Workshop, PROMAS 2003, Melbourne, Australia, July 15, 2003, Selected Revised and Invited Papers. Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 43 / 49 Conclusions Bibliography II Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, B., and Meyer, J.-J. C. (2005). Programming multi-agent systems in 3APL. In Bordini, R. H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., and El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A., editors, Multi-Agent Programming, volume 15 of Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, pages 39–67. Springer. Denti, E., Omicini, A., and Ricci, A. (2005). Multi-paradigm Java-Prolog integration in tuProlog. Science of Computer Programming, 57(2):217–250. FIPA ACL (2002). Agent Communication Language Specifications. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). Labrou, Y. and Finin, T. (1997). Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language. In Huhns, M. N. and Singh, M. P., editors, Readings in Agents, pages 235–242. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 44 / 49 Conclusions Bibliography III Molesini, A., Omicini, A., Ricci, A., and Denti, E. (2006). Zooming multi-agent systems. In Müller, J. P. and Zambonelli, F., editors, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VI, volume 3950 of LNCS, pages 81–93. Springer. 6th International Workshop (AOSE 2005), Utrecht, The Netherlands, 25–26 July 2005. Revised and Invited Papers. Omicini, A. (2007). Formal ReSpecT in the A&A perspective. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 175(2):97–117. 5th International Workshop on Foundations of Coordination Languages and Software Architectures (FOCLASA’06), CONCUR’06, Bonn, Germany, 31 August 2006. Post-proceedings. Omicini, A. and Denti, E. (2001). From tuple spaces to tuple centres. Science of Computer Programming, 41(3):277–294. Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 45 / 49 Conclusions Bibliography IV Omicini, A. and Ossowski, S. (2003). Objective versus subjective coordination in the engineering of agent systems. In Klusch, M., Bergamaschi, S., Edwards, P., and Petta, P., editors, Intelligent Information Agents: An AgentLink Perspective, volume 2586 of LNAI: State-of-the-Art Survey, pages 179–202. Springer. Omicini, A., Ricci, A., and Viroli, M. (2005). An algebraic approach for modelling organisation, roles and contexts in MAS. Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 16(2-3):151–178. Special Issue: Process Algebras and Multi-Agent Systems. Omicini, A., Ricci, A., and Viroli, M. (2006). Agent Coordination Contexts for the formal specification and enactment of coordination and security policies. Science of Computer Programming, 63(1):88–107. Special Issue on Security Issues in Coordination Models, Languages, and Systems. Omicini, A., Ricci, A., and Viroli, M. (2007). Timed environment for Web agents. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, 5(2):161–175. Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 46 / 49 Conclusions Bibliography V Rao, A. S. (1996). AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In Van de Velde, W. and Perram, J. W., editors, Agents Breaking Away, volume 1038 of LNCS, pages 42–55. Springer. 7th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW’96), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 22-25 January 1996, Proceedings. Rao, A. S. and Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture. In Allen, J. F., Fikes, R., and Sandewall, E., editors, 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pages 473–484, San Mateo, CA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Ricci, A., Viroli, M., and Omicini, A. (2006a). Agent coordination contexts in a MAS coordination infrastructure. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 20(2–4):179–202. Special Issue: Best of “From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation (AT2AI) – 4”. Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 47 / 49 Conclusions Bibliography VI Ricci, A., Viroli, M., and Omicini, A. (2006b). Construenda est CArtAgO: Toward an infrastructure for artifacts in MAS. In Trappl, R., editor, Cybernetics and Systems 2006, volume 2, pages 569–574, Vienna, Austria. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies. 18th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR 2006), 5th International Symposium “From Agent Theory to Theory Implementation” (AT2AI-5). Proceedings. Ricci, A., Viroli, M., and Omicini, A. (2007). CArtAgO: A framework for prototyping artifact-based environments in MAS. In Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., and Michel, F., editors, Environments for MultiAgent Systems III, volume 4389 of LNAI, pages 67–86. Springer. 3rd International Workshop (E4MAS 2006), Hakodate, Japan, 8 May 2006. Selected Revised and Invited Papers. Schumacher, M. (2001). Objective Coordination in Multi-Agent System Engineering. Design and Implementation, volume 2039 of LNCS. Springer. Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 48 / 49 Conclusions Programming Languages for Multiagent Systems Multiagent Systems LM Sistemi Multiagente LM Andrea Omicini andrea.omicini@unibo.it Ingegneria Due Alma Mater Studiorum—Università di Bologna a Cesena Academic Year 2010/2011 Andrea Omicini (Università di Bologna) Programming Languages for MAS A.Y. 2010/2011 49 / 49