Peter McBurney
ABSTRACT
What distinguishes e-commerce from ordinary commerce? What distinguishes it from distributed computation? In this paper we propose a performative theory of e-commerce, drawing on speech act theory, in which e-commerce exchanges are promises of future commercial actions, whose real-world meanings are constructed jointly and incrementally. We then define a computational model for this theory, called Posit Spaces, along with the syntax and semantics for an agent interaction protocol, the Posit Spaces Protocol or PSP. This protocol enables participants in a multi-agent commercial interaction to propose, accept, modify and revoke joint commitments. Our work integrates three strands of prior research: the theory of Tuple Spaces in distributed computation; formal dialogue games from argumentation theory; and the study of commitments in multi-agent systems.
- J. L. Austin. How To Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1962.]]Google Scholar
- M. Bratu, J. M. Andreoli, O. Boissier, and S. Castellani. A software infrastructure for negotiation within inter organisational alliances. In J. Padget et al., editor, Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce IV, LNAI 2531, pages 161--179. Springer, Berlin, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. Linda in context. Communications of the ACM, 32(4):444--458, 1989.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Ducasse, T. Hofmann, and O. Nierstrasz. OpenSpaces: an object-oriented framework for reconfigurable coordination spaces. In A. Porto and G-C. Roman, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, LNCS 1906, pages 1--19. Springer, Berlin, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. van Eijk. Programming Languages for Agent Communications. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 2000.]]Google Scholar
- FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Technical Report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 10 August 2001.]]Google Scholar
- R. A. Flores and R. C. Kremer. To commit or not to commit: modelling agent conversations for action. Computational Intelligence, 18(2):120--173, 2002.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Freeman, S. Hupfer, and K. Arnold. JavaSpaces: Principles, Patterns and Practice. Addison-Wesley, USA, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Gelernter. Generative communication in Linda. ACM Trans. Prog. Languages and Systems, 7(1):80--112, 1985.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen, London, UK, 1970.]]Google Scholar
- N. R. Jennings, P. Faratin, A. R. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and C. Sierra. Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2):199--215, 2001.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.]]Google Scholar
- G. L. Lilien, P. Kotler, and K. S. Moorthy. Marketing Models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.]]Google Scholar
- N. López, M. Núñez, I. Rodríguez, and F. Rubio. A formal framework for e-barter based on microeconomic theory and process algebras. In H. Unger et al., editor, Innovative Internet Computing Systems (IICS-2002), LNCS 2346, pages 217--228. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. McBurney, R. M. van Eijk, S. Parsons, and L. Amgoud. A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2003. In press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. Logic, Language and Information, 11(3):315--334, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and M. Wooldridge. Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors, Proc. AAMAS 2002, pages 402--409, New York, 2002. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. H. Minsky and J. Leichter. Law-governed Linda communication model. In P. Ciancarini et al., editors, Object-based Models and Languages for Concurrent Systems, LNCS 924, pages 125--146. Springer, Berlin, 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Noriega and C. Sierra. Towards layered dialogical agents. In J. P. Müller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III: Proc. 3rd ATAL Workshop, LNAI 1193, pages 173--188, Berlin, 1997. Springer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. A. Papadopoulous and F. Arbab. Coordination models and languages. In M. V. Zelkowitz, editor, Advances in Computers: The Engineering of Large Systems, volume 46. Academic Press, The Netherlands, 1998.]]Google Scholar
- G. A. Papadopoulous and F. Arbab. Coordinating electronic commerce activities in MANIFOLD. Netnomics, 2:101--116, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J. Logic and Computation, 8(3):261--292, 1998.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Reed, T. J. Norman, and N. R. Jennings. Negotiating the semantics of agent communications languages. Computational Intelligence, 18(2):229--252, 2002.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. A. Rodríguez, F. J. Martin, P. Noriega, P. Garcia, and C. Sierra. Towards a test-bed for trading agents in electronic auction markets. AI Communications, 11(1):5--19, 1998.]]Google Scholar
- M. P. Singh. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7:97--113, 1999.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. D. Tennent. Semantics of Programming Languages. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1991.]]Google Scholar
- M. Venkatraman and M. P. Singh. Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3):217--236, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. J. Wooldridge. Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(1):9--31, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. J. Wooldridge. Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. R. Wurman, M. P. Wellman, and W. E. Walsh. A parametrization of the auction design space. Games and Economic Behavior, 35(1--2):304--338, 2001.]]Google Scholar
- P. Yolum and M. P. Singh. Commitment machines. In J-J. Meyer and M. Tambe, editors, Proc. ATAL 2001, pages 245--257, Seattle, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Yolum and M. P. Singh. Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors, Proc. AAMAS 2002, pages 527--534, New York, 2002. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Posit spaces: a performative model of e-commerce
Recommendations
The Communicative Functions of Emoticons in Workplace E-Mails: :-
CMC research presents emoticons as visual representations of writers' emotions. We argue that the emoticons in authentic workplace e-mails do not primarily indicate writers' emotions. Rather, they provide information about how an utterance is supposed ...
Sarcasm, Deception, and Stating the Obvious: Planning Dialogue without Speech Acts
This paper presents an alternative to the ‘speech acts with STRIPS’ approach to implementing dialogue a fully implemented AI planner which generates and analyses the semantics of utterances using a single linguistic act for all contexts. Using this act, ...
Speech acts, commitment and multi-agent communication
The principle aim of this paper is to reconsider the suitability of Austin and Searle's Speech Act theory as a basis for agent communication languages. Two distinct computational interpretations of speech acts are considered: the standard "mentalistic" ...
Comments