Service Oriented Computing and Applications

, Volume 12, Issue 3–4, pp 333–347 | Cite as

Fog computing for the integration of agents and web services in an autonomic reflexive middleware

  • Manuel Sánchez
  • Jose AguilarEmail author
  • Ernesto Exposito
Original Research Paper


Service-oriented architecture (SOA) has emerged as a dominant architecture for interoperability between applications, by using a weakly coupled model based on the flexibility provided by web services, which has led to a wide range of applications, which is known as cloud computing. On the other hand, multi-agent system (MAS) is widely used in the industry, because it provides an appropriate solution to complex problems, in a proactive and intelligent way. Specifically, intelligent environments (smart city, smart classroom, cyber-physical system, and smart factory) obtain great benefits by using both architectures, because MAS endows intelligence to the environment, while SOA enables users to interact with cloud services, which improve the capabilities of the devices deployed in the environment. Additionally, the fog computing paradigm extends the cloud computing paradigm to be closer to the things that produce and act on the intelligent environment, allowing to deal with issues like mobility, real time, low latency, geo-localization, among other aspects. In this sense, in this article we present a middleware, which not only is capable of allowing MAS and SOA to communicate in a bidirectional and transparent way, but also it uses the fog computing paradigm autonomously, according to the context and to the system load factor. Additionally, we analyze the performance of the incorporation of the fog computing paradigm in our middleware and compare it with other works.


Fog computing Cloud computing SOA MAS Intelligent environment Integration 


  1. 1.
    Sanchez M, Aguilar J, Cordero J, Valdiviezo P (2015) Basic features of a reflective middleware for intelligent learning environment in the cloud (IECL). In: Proceeding of the Asia-Pacific conference on computer aided system engineering (APCASE), Quito, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aguilar J, Valdiviezo P, Cordero J, Sánchez M (2015) Conceptual design of a smart classroom based on multiagent systems. In: Proceedings on the international conference on artificial intelligence (ICAI), Las Vegas, pp 471–477Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aguilar J, Mendoça M, Jerez M, Sanchez M (2017) Emergencia ontológica basada en análisis de contexto, como servicio para ambientes inteligentes. DYNA 84(200):28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aguilar J, Jerez M, Mendonca M, Sánchez M (2016) MiSCi: autonomic reflective middleware for smart cities. In: Valencia-García R, Lagos-Ortiz K, Alcaraz-Mármol G, del Cioppo J, Vera-Lucio N (eds) Proceedings of the Technologies and innovation: second international conference, CITI 2016, Guayaquil, Ecuador, November 23–25, 2016. Springer, Cham, pp 241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Archimède B, Memon MA, Ishak K (2017) Combining multi-agent model, SOA and ontologies in a distributed and interoperable architecture to manage multi-site production projects. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 30(8):856–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adaldo A, Liuzza D, Dimarogonas V, Johansson K (2017) Coordination of multi-agent systems with intermittent access to a cloud repository. In: Fossen I, Pettersen Y, Nijmeijer H (eds) Sensing and control for autonomous vehicles: applications to land, water and air vehicles. Springer, Cham, pp 453–471Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain V, Madan MK (2017) Multi agent driven data mining for knowledge discovery in cloud computing. Int J Res Comput Appl Manag 3(1):111–117Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Ayyoub M, Jararweh Y, Daraghmeh M, Althebyan Q (2015) Multi-agent based dynamic resource provisioning and monitoring for cloud computing systems infrastructure. Clust Comput 18(2):919–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenwood D, Buhler P, Reitbauer A (2005) Web service discovery and composition using the web service integration gateway. In: The 2005 IEEE international conference on e-technology, e-commerce and e-service, pp 789–790Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sánchez A, Villarrubia G, Zato C, Rodríguez S, Chamoso P (2013) A gateway protocol based on FIPA-ACL for the new agent platform PANGEA. In: Perez J, Rodriguez, Corchado J, Fahndrich J, Mathieu P, Campbell A, Suarez-Figueroa M, Ortega A, Adam E, Navarro E, Hermoso R, Moreno M (eds) Trends in practical applications of agents and multiagent systems. Springer, Cham, pp 41–51Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marín CA et al (2013) A conceptual architecture based on intelligent services for manufacturing support systems. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Manchester, UK, pp 4749–4754Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FIPA (2017) FIPA ACL message structure specification. Foundation for intelligent physical agents. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  13. 13.
    Singapogu SS, Gupton K, Schade U (2016) The role of ontology in C2SIM. In: 21st international command and control research and technology symposium, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geetha R, Shunmuganathan KL (2017) Intelligent query processing from biotechnological database using co-operating agents based on FIPA standards and hadoop, in a secure cloud environment. In: 2017 4th international conference on advanced computing and communication systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oracle (2017) Simple object access protocol overview. Oracle9i Application Server Oracle9iAS SOAP developer’s guide. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  16. 16.
    W3C (2017) Extensible markup language (XML). Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  17. 17.
    Fuksa M (2014) Methods and tools for intelligent ESB. Master, Czech Technical University in Prague, PragueGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinto Pereira A (2014) Towards robustness and self-organization of ESB-based solutions using service life-cycle management. Master thesis, Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, BragançaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanchez M, Aguilar J, Exposito E (2018) Integrating SOA and MAS in intelligent environments. Accepted for publication, DYNAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bonomi F, Milito R, Zhu J, Addepalli S (2012) Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the first edition of the MCC workshop on Mobile cloud computing, Helsinki, Finland, pp 13–16Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aguilar J, Sanchez MB, Jerez M, Mendonca M (2017) An extension of the MiSCi middleware for smart cities based on Fog computing. J Inf Technol Res JITR 10(4):23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amadeo M, Molinaro A, Paratore S, Altomare A, Giordano A, Mastroianni C (2017) A cloud of things framework for smart home services based on information centric networking. In: IEEE 14th international conference on networking, sensing and control (ICNSC), Calabria, pp 245–250Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riggins F, Keskin T (2017) Introduction to Internet of things: providing services using smart devices, wearables, and quantified self minitrack. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sengupta S, Gupta N, Naik V (2017) Firewall for internet of things. Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, New DehliGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peng Z, Xu B, Gates AM, Cui D, Lin W (2017) A study of a multi-agent organizational framework with virtual machine clusters as the unit of granularity in cloud computing. Comput J 60(7):1032–1043Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giordano A, Spezzano G, Vinci A (2016) Smart agents and fog computing for smart city applications. In: Smart Cities, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zanero S (2017) Cyber-physical systems. Computer 50(4):14–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jazdi N (2014) Cyber physical systems in the context of industry 4.0. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on automation, quality and testing, robotics, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohamed N, Al-Jaroodi J, Jawhar I, Lazarova-Molnar S, Mahmoud S (2017) SmartCityWare: a service-oriented middleware for cloud and fog enabled smart city services. IEEE Access 5:17576–17588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Faheem M, Gungor V (2018) Energy efficient and QoS-aware routing protocol for wireless sensor network-based smart grid applications in the context of industry 4.0. Appl Soft Comput 68:910–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    García Coria JA, Castellanos-Garzón JA, Corchado JM (2014) Intelligent business processes composition based on multi-agent systems. Expert Syst Appl 41(4 Part 1):1189–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fu X, Bultan T, Su J (2004) Analysis of interacting BPEL web services. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on world wide web, New York, NY, USA, pp 621–630Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Decker G, Kopp O, Leymann F, Weske M (2007) BPEL4Chor: extending BPEL for modeling choreographies. In: IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS 2007), pp 296–303Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aguilar J, Ríos A, Hidrobo F, Cerrada M (2013) Sistemas Multiagentes y sus aplicaciones en Automatización Industrial, 2nd edn. Talleres Gráficos, Universidad de Los Andes, MéridaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sánchez M, Aguilar J, Cordero J, Vadiviezo P (2015) A smart learning environment based on cloud learning. Int J Adv Inf Sci Technol 4(7):36–49Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aguilar J, Jérez M, Exposito E, Villemur T (2015) CARMiCLOC: context awareness middleware in cloud computing. In: Proceeding Latin American computing conference (CLEI), Arequipa, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mendonça M, Aguilar J, Perozo N (2016) MiR-EO: Middleware Reflexivo para la Emergencia Ontológica en Ambientes Inteligentes. Lat Am J Comput Fac Syst Eng Natl Polytech Sch 3(2):16Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bonomi F, Milito R, Zhu J, Addepalli S (2012) Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the first edition of the MCC workshop on mobile cloud computing, Helsinki, Finland, pp 13–16Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mahmud R, Kotagiri R, Buyya R (2018) Fog computing: a taxonomy, survey and future directions. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li D, Tang H, Wang S, Liu C (2017) A big data enabled load-balancing control for smart manufacturing of Industry 4.0. Clust Comput 20(2):1855–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huang Z, Yu H, Peng Z, Feng Y (2017) Planning community energy system in the industry 4.0 era: achievements, challenges and a potential solution. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 78(Supplement C):710–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Romero D, Wuest T, Stahre J, Gorecky D (2017) Social factory architecture: social networking services and production scenarios through the social internet of things, services and people for the social operator 4.0. In: Advances in production management systems. The path to intelligent, collaborative and sustainable manufacturing, pp 265–273Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang S, Wan J, Zhang D, Li D, Zhang C (2016) Towards smart factory for industry 4.0: a self-organized multi-agent system with big data based feedback and coordination. Comput Netw 101(Supplement C):158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanchez M, Aguilar J, Exposito E (2017) Industry 4.0 survey and challenges since an integration perspective. Univeristé de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, Anglet, France, technical report 186Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional Experimental del TáchiraSan CristóbalVenezuela
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’informatique de L’Universite de Pau et des Pays de L’adourPauFrance
  3. 3.Universidad de los AndesMéridaVenezuela
  4. 4.Escuela Politécnica NacionalQuitoEcuador
  5. 5.Universidad Técnica Particular de LojaLojaEcuador
  6. 6.Tepuy R+D Group, Artificial Intelligence Software DevelopmentMéridaVenezuela

Personalised recommendations