A Foundation for Flexible Automated Electronic Communication

Abstract

In this paper the author describes a formal language for communication based on linguistics-more specifically, a theory of natural language communication and models of natural language conversations. The language has a small number of general message types which are formally defined by their intended effects on the recipient. For each message type he defines a standard, automated method of responding that depends only on the message type and is independent of the message's content. For more complex conversations he provides methods for responding that do depend on the content. In this system, a message's sender-automated or human-constructs and sends a message knowing that he cannot know, but can only predict, how it will be interpreted. The agent receiving the message interprets it and then uses it as a basis for inferring how it should respond. The message interpretation mechanism for this language is reusable, modular and shared by all applications. The benefit of this communication system is that it makes the communication infrastructure more flexible, easier to modify, easier to expand, and more capable.

Interoperation among agent-based information systems through a communication acts ontology

“…We basically agree with the approach presented in [9] that describes a Formal Language for Business Communications FLBC based on speech acts theory. That paper promotes a classification of messages (that is further discussed in [5]) and proposes a model of the messages interpretation process that defines a standard way for processing the messages.…”

“…The main part of COMMONT is constituted by terms related to the communication acts interchanged by agents representing different information systems (throughout this paper we use the words ''message'' and ''communication act'' as synonyms). Although other works such as SUMO [8] and FLBC [9] also propose classifications of communication acts, their approach to the problem is different. The aim of the first one is an upper and very general ontology; somewhat, a subset of which can be considered as a core starting point for our work.…”

Coordinating for Flexibility in e-Business Supply Chains

“…For example, a distributor in the IT industry reports spending $17 per SKU manually updating information for the 100,000 SKUs that need to be changed over a year-because manufacturers Standards play an important role in structuring relationships between companiesthey help reduce the extent to which market exchanges are personalized and the scope for moral hazard, shirking, and opportunistic behavior [82]. Coordination theory suggests that standardization allows for management of interdependencies, making the Downloaded by [New York University] at 08:45 19 July 2015 infrastructure more flexible and capable of supporting change [45,50]. The effect of standardization on partnering flexibility is expected to be positive, given that standardization creates network effects [23], reducing the variety of asset and informational specifications, making a wider set of users possible, increasing frequency of transactions, and reducing market uncertainty [3].…”

A theoretical investigation of the emerging standards for web services

“…However, none provides protocols for conversation policies that can guide interaction between services including mechanisms to handle any exceptions. Useful research in this direction is available elsewhere, which can be leveraged for creation or refinement of standards (Fan, Umapathy, Yen, & Purao, 2004;Kimbrough & Yang, 2004;Moore, 2000Moore, , 2001Umapathy, Purao, & Sugumaran, 2003).…”