Engineering Societies in the Agents World II

We investigate the concept of artificial societies and identify a number of separate classes of such societies. These are compared in terms of openness, flexibility, stability, and trustfulness. The two most obvious types of artificial societies are the open societies, where there are no restrictions for joining the society, and the closed societies, where it is impossible for an “external agent” to join the society. We argue that whereas open societies supports openness and flexibility, closed societies support stability and trustfulness. In many situations, however, there is a need for societies that support all these aspects, e.g., in systems characterized as information ecosystems. We therefore suggest two classes of societies that better balance the trade-off between these aspects. The first class is the semi-open societies, where any agent can join the society given that it follows some well-specified restrictions (or, at least, promises to do so), and second is the semi-closed societies, where anyone may have an agent but where the agents are of a predefined type.

[1]  Jean-Michel Adam,et al.  Approches modulaires: de la langue au discours , 2000 .

[2]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging with Integrity Constraints , 1999, ESCQARU.

[3]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .

[4]  Yves Demazeau,et al.  TALISMAN: A Multi-Agent System for Natuarl Language Processing , 1995, SBIA.

[5]  Robert Demolombe.  To trust information sources: a proposal for a modal logical framework , 2001 .

[6]  Dominique Longin,et al.  Lotrec : The Generic Tableau Prover for Modal and Description Logics , 2001, IJCAR.

[7]  Churn-Jung Liau,et al.  Logical Systems for Reasoning about Multi-agent Belief, Information Acquisition and Trust , 2000, ECAI.

[8]  Y. Wilks,et al.  A General Architecture for Text Engineering (gate) { a New Approach to Language Engineering R&d a General Architecture for Text Engineering (gate) | a New Approach to Language Engineering R&d a E G T , 1995 .

[9]  Roberto Basili,et al.  An Adaptive and Distributed Framework for Advanced IR , 2000, RIAO.

[10]  Pierre E. Bonzon.  A Reflective Proof System for Reasoning in Contexts , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[11]  Gérard Sabah,et al.  Consciousness: A requirement for understanding natural language , 1997 .

[12]  Kalina Bontcheva,et al.  Software Infrastructure for Language Resources: a Taxonomy of Previous Work and a Requirements Analysis , 2000, LREC.

[13]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Logic of Merging , 1998, KR.

[14]  Rodolfo Delmonte,et al.  Parsing with GETARUN , 2000 .

[15]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture , 1997, KR.

[16]  S. Rebecca Thomas,et al.  The PLACA Agent Programming Language , 1995, ECAI Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages.

[17]  Vincenzo Pallotta,et al.  A Meta-logical Semantics for Features and Fluents Based on Compositional Operators over Normal Logic Programs , 2000, Computational Logic.

[18]  V. Pallotta,et al.  Reasoning about Fluents in Logic Programming , 1999 .

[19]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  AGENT0: A Simple Agent Language and Its Interpreter , 1991, AAAI.

[20]  Dan Cristea.  An Incremental Discourse Parser Architecture , 2000, Natural Language Processing.

[21]  Charles J. Petrie,et al.  Agent-Based Software Engineering , 2000, AOSE.

[22]  László Aszalós.  The Logic of Knights, Knaves, Normals and Mutes , 2000, Acta Cybern..

[23]  Massimo Poesio,et al.  Disambiguation as (Defeasible) Reasoning about Underspecified Representations , 1995 .

[24]  Gérard Chollet,et al.  Swiss French PolyPhone and PolyVar: telephone speech databases to model inter- and intra-speaker variability , 1996 .

[25]  Brian F. Chellas.  Modal Logic: Normal systems of modal logic , 1980 .

[26]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  A Proposal for a new KQML Specification , 1997 .