- Email: [email protected]
action perspective
Data & Knowledge Engineering 47 (2003) 299–300 www.elsevier.com/locate/datak
Guest editorial
The language/action perspective
In todayÕs information society, communication plays a crucial role for individuals cooperating to achieve mutual goals. It is the basic mechanism for coordination in organizations. In principle, communication is something between human agents, but the process can be supported by electronic media (for example, email or negotiation support systems), and in other cases can be delegated almost completely to software agents or other systems. Communication is one of the main functions of our present-day information systems. Traditionally, information systems were focused on data management, and the communication function was recognized relatively late. Since 1980, a new paradigm has evolved in the field of information systems: the language/action perspective (LAP), in particular through the pioneering work of Flores and Winograd. As diverse as the applications of LAP in the last twenty years have been, they all have in common the fundamental agreement that language is not only used for representing and sharing information, but also to perform actions, e.g. promises, orders, declarations. The focus is on the pragmatic aspects of language, i.e. how language is used in particular contexts to achieve practical goals such as agreements and mutual understandings. Over the years, many of the LAP ideas have found their way in the IS and AI field, for example, in the design of Agent Communication Languages. In 1996, a first Int. Workshop on the Language/Action Perspective was held in Tilburg, The Netherlands. Since then, an annual workshop has been held in several countries. The four papers presented in this volume were originally submitted and discussed at one of the two most recent workshops (Montreal, 2001, and Delft, 2002). In the first paper, Jan Dietz from Delft University of Technology, presents DEMO, a LAP based methodology that has been developed within a rigorous theoretical framework. DEMO has been applied in many practical cases. The paper discusses the role of communicative action in organizations and the question which aggregation levels of communication can be distinguished. The question of aggregation and abstraction levels in communicative action has been the subject of many recent debates and is also addressed in the second paper by Mikael Lind and G€ oran Goldkuhl (University College of Bor as, Link€ oping University). This paper is focused on interorganizational communication, as in e-commerce applications, and describes a pattern framework for business interactions that makes a distinction between five interaction layers. The aim of the third paper by Hans Weigand and Aldo de Moor (Tilburg University) is a critical analysis of the communication norms underlying the various LAP approaches. The first 0169-023X/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2003.09.001
300
Guest editorial / Data & Knowledge Engineering 47 (2003) 299–300
LAP approaches, such as Action Workflow, did not clearly distinguish between their way of thinking, their way of modeling and the norms that they tried to support, such as customer satisfaction. Weigand and De Moor propose an extended workflow loop model in which the norms are made explicit in logical form, so that their adherence can be tested independently of the way the communication is modelled. Finally, Mareike Schoop, Aida Jertila and Thomas List (RWTH Aachen) introduce a Negotiation Support System for Electronic B2B e-commerce. The system called Negoisst is based on two theories of communication, namely SearleÕs Theory of Speech Acts and HabermasÕ Theory of Communicative Action. Interestingly, it combines communication and document management. The system has been validated successfully for e-negotiations in the construction industry. The four papers together give a good impression of the way LAP is currently evolving. On the one hand, research efforts are directed at the theoretical foundations of LAP, in order to make them more rigid and extend the scope from workflow settings to more and more different kinds and levels of communication. On the other hand, more experience is being gained by means of prototype building and empirical validation. Along these lines, LAP could provide a valuable contribution to the emerging and exciting field of communication engineering––that area within data and knowledge engineering that deals with communication modeling as well as designing and improving various kinds of communication support systems. On behalf of the LAP community H. Weigand INFOLAB Department of Information Systems and Management Tilburg University P.O. Box 90153, Tilburg 5000 LE, The Netherlands Tel.: +31-13-466-2806; fax: +31-13-466-3069 E-mail address: [email protected]
Guest editorial
The language/action perspective
In todayÕs information society, communication plays a crucial role for individuals cooperating to achieve mutual goals. It is the basic mechanism for coordination in organizations. In principle, communication is something between human agents, but the process can be supported by electronic media (for example, email or negotiation support systems), and in other cases can be delegated almost completely to software agents or other systems. Communication is one of the main functions of our present-day information systems. Traditionally, information systems were focused on data management, and the communication function was recognized relatively late. Since 1980, a new paradigm has evolved in the field of information systems: the language/action perspective (LAP), in particular through the pioneering work of Flores and Winograd. As diverse as the applications of LAP in the last twenty years have been, they all have in common the fundamental agreement that language is not only used for representing and sharing information, but also to perform actions, e.g. promises, orders, declarations. The focus is on the pragmatic aspects of language, i.e. how language is used in particular contexts to achieve practical goals such as agreements and mutual understandings. Over the years, many of the LAP ideas have found their way in the IS and AI field, for example, in the design of Agent Communication Languages. In 1996, a first Int. Workshop on the Language/Action Perspective was held in Tilburg, The Netherlands. Since then, an annual workshop has been held in several countries. The four papers presented in this volume were originally submitted and discussed at one of the two most recent workshops (Montreal, 2001, and Delft, 2002). In the first paper, Jan Dietz from Delft University of Technology, presents DEMO, a LAP based methodology that has been developed within a rigorous theoretical framework. DEMO has been applied in many practical cases. The paper discusses the role of communicative action in organizations and the question which aggregation levels of communication can be distinguished. The question of aggregation and abstraction levels in communicative action has been the subject of many recent debates and is also addressed in the second paper by Mikael Lind and G€ oran Goldkuhl (University College of Bor as, Link€ oping University). This paper is focused on interorganizational communication, as in e-commerce applications, and describes a pattern framework for business interactions that makes a distinction between five interaction layers. The aim of the third paper by Hans Weigand and Aldo de Moor (Tilburg University) is a critical analysis of the communication norms underlying the various LAP approaches. The first 0169-023X/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2003.09.001
300
Guest editorial / Data & Knowledge Engineering 47 (2003) 299–300
LAP approaches, such as Action Workflow, did not clearly distinguish between their way of thinking, their way of modeling and the norms that they tried to support, such as customer satisfaction. Weigand and De Moor propose an extended workflow loop model in which the norms are made explicit in logical form, so that their adherence can be tested independently of the way the communication is modelled. Finally, Mareike Schoop, Aida Jertila and Thomas List (RWTH Aachen) introduce a Negotiation Support System for Electronic B2B e-commerce. The system called Negoisst is based on two theories of communication, namely SearleÕs Theory of Speech Acts and HabermasÕ Theory of Communicative Action. Interestingly, it combines communication and document management. The system has been validated successfully for e-negotiations in the construction industry. The four papers together give a good impression of the way LAP is currently evolving. On the one hand, research efforts are directed at the theoretical foundations of LAP, in order to make them more rigid and extend the scope from workflow settings to more and more different kinds and levels of communication. On the other hand, more experience is being gained by means of prototype building and empirical validation. Along these lines, LAP could provide a valuable contribution to the emerging and exciting field of communication engineering––that area within data and knowledge engineering that deals with communication modeling as well as designing and improving various kinds of communication support systems. On behalf of the LAP community H. Weigand INFOLAB Department of Information Systems and Management Tilburg University P.O. Box 90153, Tilburg 5000 LE, The Netherlands Tel.: +31-13-466-2806; fax: +31-13-466-3069 E-mail address: [email protected]