Checking correctness of business contracts via commitments

ABSTRACT

Business contracts tend to be complex. In current practice, contracts are often designed by hand and adopted by their participants after, at best, a manual analysis. This paper motivates and formalizes two aspects of contract correctness from the perspective of the preferences of the agents participating in them. A contract is safe for a participant if participating in the contract would not leave the participant worse off than otherwise. More strongly, a contract is beneficial to a participant if participating in the contract would leave the participant better off than otherwise.

This paper seeks to partially automate reasoning about the correctness of formally modeled business contracts. It represents contracts formally as a set of commitments. It motivates constraints on how cooperative agents might value the various states of commitments. Further, it shows that such constraints are consistent and promote cooperation. Lastly, it presents algorithms for checking the safety and guaranteed benefits of a contract.

REFERENCES

• 1: M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, A. Martelli, and V. Patti. Verification of protocol conformance and agent interoperability. CLIMA VI, pp. 265--283, 2005.
• 2: Jamal Bentahar , Bernard Moulin , John-Jules Ch. Meyer , Brahim Chaib-draa, A Logical Model for Commitment and Argument Network for Agent Communication, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.792-799, July 19-23, 2004, New York, New York [doi>10.1109/AAMAS.2004.18]
• 3: Amit K. Chopra , Munindar P. Singh, Contextualizing commitment protocol, Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, May 08-12, 2006, Hakodate, Japan [doi>10.1145/1160633.1160884]
• 4: N. Desai, A. K. Chopra, and M. P. Singh. Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes. AAAI, pp. 1328--1333, 2007.
• 5: E³Value. 2007. http://www.e3value.com/.
• 6: Foamex, AMFS, and Foamtec. Manufacturing agreement. http://contracts.onecle.com/admat/foamtec.mfg.1998.01.30.shtml.
• 7: Nicoletta Fornara , Marco Colombetti, Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language, Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 14-18, 2003, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/860575.860659]
• 8: Enrico Giunchiglia , Joohyung Lee , Vladimir Lifschitz , Norman McCain , Hudson Turner, Nonmonotonic causal theories, Artificial Intelligence, v.153 n.1-2, p.49-104, March 2004 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2002.12.001]
• 9: Guido Governatori , Zoran Milosevic , Shazia Sadiq, Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts, Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, p.221-232, October 16-20, 2006 [doi>10.1109/EDOC.2006.22]
• 10: P. Radha Krishna , K. Karlapalem , D. K. W. Chiu, An ER^EC framework for e-contract modeling, enactment and monitoring, Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.51 n.1, p.31-58, October 2004 [doi>10.1016/j.datak.2004.03.006]
• 11: Z. Milosevic , S. Sadiq , M. Orlowska, Translating business contract into compliant business processes, Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, p.211-220, October 16-20, 2006 [doi>10.1109/EDOC.2006.64]
• 12: C. Molina-Jiménez, S. K. Shrivastava, E. Solaiman, and J. P. Warne. Run-time monitoring and enforcement of electronic contracts. Elect. Comm. Res. Appl., 3(2):108--125, 2004.
• 13: OMG. Business process modeling notation, 2007. http://bpmn.org/.
• 14: Vincent Pijpers , Jaap Gordijn, Bridging Business Value Models and Process Models in Aviation Value Webs via Possession Rights, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p.175a, January 03-06, 2007 [doi>10.1109/HICSS.2007.111]
• 15: M. P. Singh. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Art. Intell. & Law, 7:97--113, 1999.
• 16: Texas Action Group at Austin. The causal calculator CCALC. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tag/cc/.
• 17: Feng Wan , Munindar P. Singh, Formalizing and achieving multiparty agreements via commitments, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 25-29, 2005, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1082473.1082591]
• 18: Michael Winikoff, Designing Commitment-Based Agent Interactions, Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, p.363-370, December 18-22, 2006 [doi>10.1109/IAT.2006.53]
• 19: Pinar Yolum , Munindar P. Singh, Enacting protocols by commitment concession, Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, May 14-18, 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii [doi>10.1145/1329125.1329158]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.4 Electronic Commerce

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

General Terms:
Design, Economics

Keywords:
agreement modeling, contract verification