Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 430–473 | Cite as

Medee Method Framework: a situational approach for organization-centered MAS

  • Sara J. Casare
  • Anarosa A. F. Brandão
  • Zahia Guessoum
  • Jaime S. Sichman
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a situational approach, called Medee Method Framework, which allows the development of organization-centered MAS in a disciplined way, even though some agent organizational (AO) models are not currently incorporated into agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE) methods. In order to do that, such a method framework proposes the composition of MAS situational methods out of method fragments according to a given project situation, by applying the principles proposed by situational method engineering. The proposed approach provides a high degree of reuse and flexibility, allowing the composition of new methods as well as the reengineering of AOSE methods based on the standards proposed by SPEM. Furthermore, it allows the user to leverage advantages of both AOSE methods and AO models in order to develop organization-centered MAS. The Medee Method Framework offers a method repository that covers different development phases, such as requirements, analysis, design, implementation, as well as the main components of a MAS application, like agents, environments, interactions, and organizations. This repository has been sourced from several AOSE methods and AO models, as Gaia, Tropos, Ingenias, PASSI, MOISE, and OperA.

Keywords

Organization-centered MAS AOSE method Method fragment  Situational method 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been mostly supported by FAPESPRegular research project 2009/10121-4 and international cooperation FAPESP-CNRS project 2009/54773-5., Brazil. Jaime Sichman is partially supported by CNPq, Brazil. Sara Casare was partially supported by CAPES, Brazil. Zahia Guessoum is partially supported by CNRS, France. We would like to thank the invaluable work from the reviewers that helped us to improve the paper quality and readability.

References

  1. 1.
    Agerfalk, P. J., Brinkkemper, S., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B., Karlsson, F., Kelly, S., et al. (2007). Modularization constructs in method engineering: Towards common ground? In J. Ralyté, S. Brinkkemper, & B. Henderson-Sellers (Eds.), IFIP situational method engineering: Fundamentals and experiences (pp. 359–368). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V. R. (1993). The experience factory and its relationship to other improvement paradigms. In I Sommerville & P. Manfred (Eds.), Fourth European Conference on Software Engineering ESEC 93 (pp. 68–83). doi: 10.1007/3-540-57209-0_6.
  3. 3.
    Bernon, C., Camps, V., Gleizes, M. P., & Picard, G. (2005). Engineering adaptive multiagent systems: The ADELFE methodology. In B. Henderson-Sellers & P. Giorgini (Eds.), Agent oriented methodologies (pp. 172–202). London: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bordini, R., & Hubner, J. (2007). Jason : A Java-based interpreter for an extended version of AgentSpeak. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from http://jason.sourceforge.net/Jason.pdf.
  5. 5.
    Bordini, R. H., Hubner, J. F., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Programming multiagent systems in agentspeak using Jason. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., & Perini, A. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 8(3), 203–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casare, S. J. (2012). Medee: A method framework for multiagent systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. Retrieved February 22, 2013 from http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3141/tde-05032012-162517/en.php.
  9. 9.
    Casare, S. J., Brandão, A. A. F., & Sichman, J. S. (2010). A semiotic perspective for multiagent systems development. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010) (pp. 1373–1374). Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casare, S. J., Brandão, A. A. F., & Sichman, J. S. (2010). A semiotic taxonomy to support multiagent systems situational development. In 1st Workshop on Autonomous Software Systems at CBSoft 2010, Salvador. AUTOSOFT 2010—I Workshop on Autonomous Software Systems—Anais CBSoft 2010. SBC, 2010, Vol. 10 (pp. 31–40). Retrieved February 26, 2013 from http://www.autosoft.pcs.usp.br/images/cbsoft2010_autosoft_anais.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Casare, S. J., Guessoum, Z., Brandão, A. A. F., & Sichman, J. S. (2010). Towards a new approach for MAS situational method engineering: A fragment definition. In O. Boissier, A. E. F. Seghrouchni, S. Hassas, & N. Maudet (Eds.), Proceedings of The Multiagent Logics, Languages, and Organizations Federated Workshops 2010, Vol. 627 (pp 3–16). Lyon-France, Aachen: CEUR-WS. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-627/fipa_1.pdf.
  12. 12.
    Casare, S. J., Guessoum, Z., Brandão, A. A. F. & Sichman, J. S. (2010). Devising situational method fragments for organization centered MAS development. In Proceedings of the 8th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems—EUMAS 2010. Paris, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In T. Ishida (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS 95) (pp. 41–48).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen, P., & Levesque, H. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 213–261.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cossentino, M. (2005). From requirements to code with the PASSI methodology. In B. Henderson-Sellers & P. Giorgini (Eds.), Agent oriented methodologies (pp. 79–106). London: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cossentino, M., Gaglio, S., Garro, A., & Seidita, V. (2007). Method fragments for agent design methodologies: From standardization to research. International Journal on Agent Oriented Software Engineering (IJAOSE), 1(1), 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cossentino, M., Gaud, N., Hilaire, V., Galland, S., & Koukam, A. (2010). ASPECS: An agent-oriented software process for engineering complex systems. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 20(2), 260–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeLoach, S. (2009). Moving multiagent systems from research to practice. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 3(4), 378–382.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeLoach, S. A., & García-Ojeda, J. C. (2010). O-MaSE: A customizable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multiagent systems. Intl Journal on Agent Oriented Software Engineering (IJAOSE), 4(3), 244–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Demazeau, Y. (1995). From interactions to collective behavior in agent-based systems. In Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 117–132) Saint-Malo.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Demazeau, Y. (2010). Purposive multiagent systems. In Proeedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, ICAART (pp. 22–24), Vol. 1—Artificial Intelligence, Valencia, Spain, January.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dignum, V. (2004). A model for organizational interaction: Based on agents, founded in logic. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Firesmith, D., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002). The OPEN process framework—An introduction. Harlow: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garcia-Ojeda, J. C., Deloach, S. (2010). The O-MaSE process: A standard view. In Proceedings of Workshop FIPA Design Process Documentation and Fragmentation Working Group (DPDF WG) at Multiagent Logics, Languages, and Organisations Federated Workshops (MALLOW 2010) (pp. 55–66) Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giorgini, P., et al. (2004). The Tropos methodology. In V. Bergenti, M. P. Gleizes, & F. Zambonelli (Eds.), Methodologies and software engineering for agent systems (pp. 89–106). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giorgini, P., et al. (2005). Tropos: A requirement-driven methodology for agent-oriented software. In B. Henderson-Sellers & P. Giorgini (Eds.), Agent-oriented methodologies (pp. 20–45). London: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giorgini, P., et al. (2005). The Tropos meta-model and its use. Informatica, 29, 401–408.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gouveia, G. P., Pereira, R. H., & Sichman, J. (2011). The USP farmers herding team. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 61(4), 369–383.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guessoum, Z., Cossentino, M., & Pavón, J. (2004). Roadmap of agent-oriented software engineering—The agentlink perspective. In V. Bergenti, M. P. Gleizes, & F. Zambonelli (Eds.), Methodologies and software engineering for agent systems (pp. 431–450). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harmsen, A. F. (1997). Situational method engineering. Utrecht: Moret Ernst & young.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haumer, P. (2007). Eclipse process framework composer—Part 1—Key concepts. Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.eclipse.org/epf/general/EPFComposerOverviewPart1.pdf.
  32. 32.
    Henderson-Sellers, B. (2005). Creating a comprehensive agent-oriented methodology: Using method engineering and OPEN meta-model. In B. Henderson-Sellers & P. Giorgini (Eds.), Agent-oriented methodologies (pp. 368–397). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hubner, J., Sichman, J., & Boissier, O. (2002). A model for the structural, functional, and deontic specification of organizations in multiagent systems. In G. Bittencourt & G. L. Ramalho (Eds.), 16th Brazilian Symposium on AI, SBIA’02, LNAI 2507 (pp. 118–128). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hubner, J., Sichman, J., Boissier, O., et al. (2006). S-MOISE+: A middleware for developing organized multiagent systems. In O. Boissier (Ed.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multiagent systems, LNCS 3913 (pp. 64–78). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hubner, J. F., Sichman, J. S., & Boissier, O. (2007). Developing organised multiagent systems using the MOISE+ model: Programming issues at the system and agent levels. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (IJAOSE), 1(3), 370–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hubner, J., Sichman, J. S., & Boissier, O. (2008). MOISE+ tutorial. Retrieved February 22, 2013 from http://moise.sourceforge.net/doc/tutorial.pdf.
  37. 37.
    IEEE-FIPA. (2012). Design Process Documentation Template, IEEE FIPA DPDF Working Group, #SC00097B, 2012–01-09. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from http://fipa.org/specs/fipa00097/SC00097B.pdf.
  38. 38.
    ISO 2007. ISO/IEC 24744:2007. (2007). Software engineering—Meta-model for development methodologies.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The unified software development process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Karlsson, F. (2005). Method configuration—Method and computerized tool support. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linkoping University.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kruchten, P. (2003). The rational unified process: An introduction (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lemaıtre, C., & Excelente, C. B. (1998). Multiagent organization approach. In 2nd Iberoamerican Workshop on Distributed AI and MAS, Toledo, Spain.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    OMG. (2008). Object management group. Software & systems process engineering meta-model specification, version 2.0. OMG document number: formal/2008-04-01. Retrieved January 26, 2013 from http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/.
  44. 44.
    Pavón, J., Gómez-Sanz, J. J., & Fuentes, R. (2005). The INGENIAS methodology and tools. In B. Henderson-Sellers & P. Giorgini (Eds.), Agent oriented methodologies (pp. 236–276). London: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Picard, G., Hubner, J. F., Boissier, O., & Gleizes, M. -P. (2009). Réorganisation et auto-organisation dans les Système Multiagents. In Z. Guessoum & S. Hamas (Eds.), Journées Francophones sur les systèmes multiagents— Génie Logiciel Multiagent (JFSMA09) (pp. 89–97). France: Cepadués Editions.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckére, R., & Rolland, C. (2003). Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. In J. Eder et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2003) (pp. 95–110). Klagenfurt: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rougemaille, S., Migeon, F., Millan, T., & Gleizes, M.-P. (2009). Methodology fragments definition in SPEM for designing adaptive methodology: A first step. In M. Luck, J. J. Gomez-Sanz (Eds.), AOSE 2008, LNCS, Vol. 5386 (pp. 74–85), Reading, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Seidita, V., Cossentino, M., & Gaglio S. (2006). A repository of fragments for agent systems design. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Objects and Agents (WOA 2006) (pp. 130–137), CEUR.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Seidita, V., Cossentino, M., Hilaire, V., Gaud, N., Galland, S., Koukam, A., et al. (2010). The meta-model: A starting point for design processes construction. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 20(4), 575–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Seidita, V., Cossentino, M., & Chella, A. (2012). A proposal of process fragment definition and documentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7541, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Seidita, V., Cossentino, M., & Chella, A. (2012). How to extract fragments from agent oriented design process, Workshop AOSE@AAMAS 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2013 from http://www.pa.icar.cnr.it/cossentino/paper/aose0212-fragment.pdf.
  52. 52.
    Sichman, J. S., & Demazeau, Y. (2001). On social reasoning in multiagent systems. Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial, 13, 68–84.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sommerville, I. (2006). Software engineering (8th ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stamper, R. (1996). Signs, norms, and information system. In B. Holmqvist, P. B. Andersen, H. Klein, & R. Posner (Eds.), Signs at work: Semiosis & information processing in organizations (pp. 349–397). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wood, M., & DeLoach, S. A. (2001). An overview of the multiagent systems engineering methodology. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (pp. 207–221). LNCS, Vol. 1957, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N. R., & Wooldridge, M. (2003). Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and Methodology, 12(3), 417–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara J. Casare
    • 1
  • Anarosa A. F. Brandão
    • 1
  • Zahia Guessoum
    • 2
  • Jaime S. Sichman
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratório de Técnicas Inteligentes (LTI), Escola Politécnica (EP)Universidade de São Paulo (USP)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Equipe SMA, Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris 6 (LIP6)Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations