Building and implementing policies in autonomous and autonomic systems using MaCMAS

A case study based on a NASA concept mission
  • Joaquin Peña
  • Michael G. Hinchey
  • Roy Sterritt
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
Original Paper


Autonomic Computing, self-management based on high level guidance from humans, is increasingly being accepted as a means forward in designing reliable systems that both hide complexity from the user and control IT management costs. Effectively, AC may be viewed as policy-based self-management. We look at ways of achieving this, with particular focus on agent-oriented software engineering. We propose utilizing MaCMAS, an AOSE methodology for specifying autonomic and autonomous properties of the system independently. Later, by means of composition of these specifications, guided by a policy specification, we construct a specification for the policy and its subsequent deployment. We illustrate this by means of a case study based on a NASA concept mission and describe future work on a support toolkit.


Autonomic computing Policy-based management Agent-oriented software engineering 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    IEEE Task Force on Autonomous and Autonomic Systems (TFAAS) (2005) Available at Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babaoglu O, Couch A, Ganger G, Stone P, Yousif M, Kephart J (2005) Panel: grand challenges of autonomic computing. In: 2nd IEEE international conference on autonomic computing (ICAC’05), Seattle, WA, 13–16 June 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curtis SA, Truszkowski WF, Rilee ML, Clark PE (2003) ANTS for the human exploration and development of space. In: Proc IEEE aerospace conference, Big Sky, Montana, 9–16 March 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganek AG (2003) Autonomic computing: implementing the vision. Keynote presentation at the Autonomic Computing Workshop, AMS’03, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heflin J, Hendler J (2000) Dynamic ontologies on the web. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp 443–449Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hinchey MG, Rash JL, Rouff CA (2004) Requirements to design to code: Towards a fully formal approach to automatic code generation. Technical Report TM-2005-212774, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MDGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoare CAR (1980) Communicating sequential processes. In: McKeag RM, Macnaghten AM (eds) On the construction of programs—an advanced course. Cambridge University Press, pp 229–254Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horn P (2001) Autonomic computing: IBM perspective on the state of information technology. In: Scottsdale AR (eds) AGENDA’01 (available at com/autonomic/)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jennings N (2001) An agent-based approach for building complex software systems. Commun ACM 44(4):35–41CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaminsky D (2005) An introduction to policy for autonomic computing. white paper, IBMGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendall EA (2000) Role modeling for agent system analysis, design, and implementation. IEEE Concurrency 8(2):34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kephart JO, Walsh WE (2004) An artificial intelligence perspective on autonomic computing policies. In: POLICY. IEEE Computer Society, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liskov B, Wing JM (1993) Specifications and their use in defining subtypes. In: Proceedings of the eighth annual conference on object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications. ACM Press, pp 16–28Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lymberopoulos L, Lupu E, Sloman M (2003) An adaptive policy-based framework for network services management. J Network Syst Manage 11(3)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Masullo MJ, Calo SB (1993) Policy management: An architecture and approach. In: IEEE first international workshop on systems management, Los Angeles, CA, April 14–16Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meissner A, Musunoori SB, Wolf LC (2004) MGMS/GML—towards a new policy specification framework for multicast group integrity. In: SAINT. IEEE Computer Society, pp 233–242Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitra P, Wiederhold G (2004) An ontology-composition algebra. In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on ontologies, International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 93–116Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitra P, Wiederhold G, Jannink J (1999) Semi-automatic integration of knowledge sources. In: Proc of the 2nd Int Conf on Information FUSION’99Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Odell J, Parunak H, Fleischer M (2003) The role of roles in designing effective agent organisations. In: Garcia A, Lucenaand C, Zambonelliand F, Omiciniand A, Castro J (eds) Software engineering for large-scale multi-agent systems. LNCS, vol 2603. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 27–28Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group (OMG) (2003) Unified modeling language: Superstructure. version 2.0. Final adopted specification ptc/03–08–02, OMG http://www.omg.orgGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Dyke Parunak H, Odell J (2001) Representing social structures in UML. In: Müller JP, Andre E, Sen S, Frasson C (eds) Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents, Montreal. ACM Press, pp 100–101Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peña J (2005) On improving the modelling of complex acquaintance organisations of agents. A method fragment for the analysis phase. PhD thesis, University of SevilleGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peña J, Corchuelo R, Arjona JL (2002) Towards interaction protocol operations for large multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Int workshop on formal approaches to agent-based systems (FAABS 2002), LNAI, vol 2699, NASA-GSFC, Greenbelt. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 79–91Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peña J, Corchuelo R, Arjona JL (2003) A top down approach for MAS protocol descriptions. In: ACM symposium on applied computing SAC’03, Melbourne, ACM Press, pp 45–49Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peña J, Hinchey MG, Sterritt R, Ruiz-Cortés A, Resinas M (2006) A model-driven architecture approach for modeling, specifying and deploying policies in autonomous and autonomic systems. In: Second international symposium on dependable autonomic and secure computing (DASC 2006), 29 September – 1 October 2006, Indianapolis. IEEE Computer Society, pp 19–30Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peña J, Levy R, Corchuelo R (2005) Towards clarifying the importance of interactions in agent-oriented software engineering. Int Iberoamerican J AI 9(25):19–28Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pena J, Hinchey MG, Sterritt R (2006) Towards modeling, specifying and deploying policies in autonomous and autonomic systems using an AOSE methodology. In: EASE ’06: proceedings of the third IEEE international workshop on engineering of autonomic and autonomous systems (EASE’06), Washington. IEEE Computer Society, pp 37–46Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sterritt R (2002) Towards autonomic computing: Effective event management. In: 27th Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop (SEW), Maryland, December 3–5. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 40–47Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sterritt R, Hinchey MG, Rash J, Truszkowski W, Rouff C, Gracanin D (2005) Towards formal specification and generation of autonomic policies. In: First IFIP workshop on trusted and autonomic ubiquitous and embedded systems (TAUES 2005). LNCS, vol 3823Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sterritt R, Rouff CA, Hinchey MG, Rash JL, Truszkowski WF (2006) Next generation system and software architectures: challenges from future NASA space exploration missions. J Sci Comput Program 61(1):48–57CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zambonelli F, Jennings N, Wooldridge M (2003) Developing multiagent systems: the GAIA methodology. ACM Trans Software Eng Methodol 12(3):317–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joaquin Peña
    • 1
  • Michael G. Hinchey
    • 2
  • Roy Sterritt
    • 3
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SevilleSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Loyola CollegeBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.University of UlsterUlsterNorthern Ireland

Personalised recommendations