Modeling exceptions via commitment protocols

ABSTRACT

This paper develops a model for exceptions and an approach for incorporating them in commitment protocols among autonomous agents. Modeling and handling exceptions is critical for successful applications of multiagent systems. Protocols help build multiagent systems, but traditional representations (such as finite state machines or Petri nets) inadequately model complex interactions and exceptions therein. Emerging commitment-based representations are promising, because they declaratively reflect the semantics of an interaction. However, current approaches lack a strong treatment of exceptions.This paper treats both expected and unexpected exceptions. A commitment protocol is modeled as a set of computations, each representing an allowed interaction and showing the evolving commitments of the participants. Exceptions are modeled via preference structures induced on these sets of computations. The preference structures statically show how expected exceptions are handled whereas the structures must be enhanced dynamically to handle unexpected exceptions. Our approach includes operators for composing protocols and exception handlers, whereby appropriate exception handlers can be dynamically introduced into a protocol as needed.The main contributions of this paper are (1) a framework for modeling and handling exceptions intelligently in commitment protocols and (2) a demonstration of the benefits of commitment protocols over traditional formalisms in handling exceptions.

REFERENCES

• 1: T. Andrews, F. Curbera, H. Dholakia, Y. Goland, J. Klein, F. Leymann, K. Liu, D. Roller, D. Smith, S. Thatte, I. Trickovic, and S. Weerawarana. Business process execution language for web services, (BPEL 1.1), May 2003. www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/wsbpel.
• 2: F. Casati, M. Fugini, and I. Mirbel. An environment for designing exceptions in workflows. Information Systems, 24(3):255--273, 1999.
• 3: Dickson K. W. Chiu , Qing Li , Kamalakar Karlapalem, ADOME-WFMS: towards cooperative handling of workflow exceptions, Advances in exception handling techniques, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, 2001
• 4: N. Desai, A. U. Mallya, A. K. Chopra, and M. P. Singh. Processes = Protocols + Policies: A methodology for business process development. Technical report, North Carolina State University, 2004. TR2004-34.
• 5: J. Eder and W. Leibhart. The workflow activity model WAMO. In S. Laufmann, S. Spaccapietra, and T. Yokoi, editors, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS-95), pages 87--98. University of Toronto Press, May 1995.
• 6: Nicoletta Fornara , Marco Colombetti, Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 2, July 15-19, 2002, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/544862.544868]
• 7: Anuj K. Jain , Manuel Aparico, IV , Munindar P. Singh, Agents for process coherence in virtual enterprises, Communications of the ACM, v.42 n.3, p.62-69, March 1999 [doi>10.1145/295685.295702]
• 8: Mohan Kamath , Krithi Ramamritham, Failure Handling and Coordinated Execution of Concurrent Workflows, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Data Engineering, p.334-341, February 23-27, 1998
• 9: N. Kavantzas, D. Burdett, G. Ritzinger, T. Fletcher, and Y. Lafon. Web service choreography description language (WS-CDL 1.0), December 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/.
• 10: Mark Klein , Chrysanthos Dellarocas, Exception handling in agent systems, Proceedings of the third annual conference on Autonomous Agents, p.62-68, April 1999, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/301136.301164]
• 11: Mark Klein , Juan-Antonio Rodriguez-Aguilar , Chrysanthos Dellarocas, Using Domain-Independent Exception Handling Services to Enable Robust Open Multi-Agent Systems: The Case of Agent Death, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.7 n.1-2, p.179-189, July-September 2003 [doi>10.1023/A:1024145408578]
• 12: A. U. Mallya and M. P. Singh. A semantic approach for designing commitment protocols. In R. V. Eijk, editor, Developments in Agent Communication, volume 3396 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 37--51. Springer, Berlin, 2005.
• 13: A. U. Mallya, P. Yolum, and M. P. Singh. Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In F. Dignum, editor, Advances in Agent Communication, volume 2922 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 166--182, Berlin, 2003. Springer.
• 14: D. Martin, M. Burstein, J. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. McDermott, S. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, B. Parsia, T. Payne, E. Sirin, N. Srinivasan, and K. Sycara. Owl-s: Semantic markup for web services. W3C Member Submission, November 2004. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S.
• 15: R. Miller and A. Tripathi. Issues with exception handling in object-oriented systems. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, volume 1241 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 85--103, 1997.
• 16: Mahadevan Venkatraman , Munindar P. Singh, Verifying Compliance with Commitment Protocols, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.2 n.3, p.217-236, September 1999 [doi>10.1023/A:1010056221226]
• 17: Peter Wegner, Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms, Communications of the ACM, v.40 n.5, p.80-91, May 1997 [doi>10.1145/253769.253801]
• 18: M. Winikoff, W. Liu, and J. Harland. Enhancing commitment machines. In Proceedings of the AAMAS-04 Workshop on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies, 2004.
• 19: Pinar Yolum, Towards design tools for protocol development, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 25-29, 2005, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1082473.1082489]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.0 General

General Terms:
Reliability

Keywords:
agents, commitments, exception handling, multiagent systems