Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 203–236

Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology

  • Paolo Bresciani
  • Anna Perini
  • Paolo Giorgini
  • Fausto Giunchiglia
  • John Mylopoulos
Article

Abstract

Our goal in this paper is to introduce and motivate a methodology, called Tropos,1 for building agent oriented software systems. Tropos is based on two key ideas. First, the notion of agent and all related mentalistic notions (for instance goals and plans) are used in all phases of software development, from early analysis down to the actual implementation. Second, Tropos covers also the very early phases of requirements analysis, thus allowing for a deeper understanding of the environment where the software must operate, and of the kind of interactions that should occur between software and human agents. The methodology is illustrated with the help of a case study. The Tropos language for conceptual modeling is formalized in a metamodel described with a set of UML class diagrams.

agent-oriented software engineering multi-agent systems agent-oriented methodologies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Bauer, J. P. Müller, and J. Odell, “Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent software systems,” Int. J. Software. Eng. Knowl. Eng., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 207-230, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Booch, J. Rambaugh, and J. Jacobson, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series, Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. M. T. Brazier, B. Dunin Keplicz, N. Jennings, and J. Treur, “DESIRE: Modelling multi-agent systems in a compositional formal framework,” Int. J. Coop. Inform. Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Bresciani, A. Perini, P. Giorgini, F. Giunchiglia, and J. Mylopoulos. “Modeling early requirements in tropos: A transformation based approach,” in Wooldridge, et al. [17].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Caire, F. Leal, P. Chainho, R. Evans, F. Garijo, J. Gomez, J. Pavon, P. Kearney, J. Stark, and P. Massoneta, “Agent oriented analysis using MESSAGE/UML,” in Wooldridge, et al. [17].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Castro, M. Kolp, and J. Mylopoulos. “Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: The tropos project,” Information Systems, Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. K. Chung, B. A. Nixon, E. Yu, and J. Mylopoulos, Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering, Kluwer Publishing, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Ciancarini and M. Wooldridge, (ed.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, vol. 1957 of Lecture Notes in AI., Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Roveri, “NuSMV: A new symbolic model checker,” Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT), vol. 2, no. 4, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson, “Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic,” in D. Kozen, (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Logics of Programs, vol. 131 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Yorktown Heights, New York, Springer-Verlag: New York, pp. 52-71, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Coburn, “JACK Intelligent Agents User Guide,” AOS Technical Report, Agent Oriented Software Pty Ltd, July 2000. http://www.jackagents.com/docs/jack/html/index.html.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Dardenne, A. van Lamsweerde, and S. Fickasu, “Goal-directed requirements acquisition,” Sci. Comput. Program., vol. 20, no. 1-2, pp. 3-50, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. A. Deloach, “Analysis and design using MaSE and agent Tool, in 12th Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (MAICS 2001), Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, March 31-April 1 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Fuxman, P. Giorgini, M. Kolp, and J. Mylopoulos, “Information systems as social structures,” in Second International Conference on Formal Ontologies for Information Systems (FOIS-2001), Ogunquit, USA, October 17-19 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Fuxman, M. Pistore, J. Mylopoulos, and P. Traverso, “Model checking early requirements specification in Tropos,” in Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, CA, August 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Giorgini, J. Mylopoulos, E. Nicchiarelli, and R. Sebastiani, “Reasoning with goal models,” in S. Spaccapietra, S. T. March, and Y. Kambayashi, (eds.), 21st International Conference on Conceptual Model. (ER02), Tampere, Finland, vol. 2503 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Giorgini, A. Perini, J. Mylopoulos, F. Giunchiglia, and P. Bresciani, “Agent-oriented software development: A case study,” in S. Sen, J. P. Müller, E. Andre and C. Frassen, (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Software Engineering-Knowledge Engineering (SEKE01), Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA, June 13-15, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Davis and F. Giunchiglia, Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States, Prentice Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Giunchiglia, J. Mylopoulos, and A, Perini, “The Tropos software development methodology: Processes, models and diagrams,” in F. Giunchiglia, J. Odell, and G. Weiβ, (eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering III, Third International Workshop (AOSE2002), Bologna, Italy LNCS, Springer-Verlag, in press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Kinny, M. Georgeff, and A. Rao, “A methodology and modelling technique for systems of BDI agents,” in W. Van de Velde and J. W. Perram, (eds.), Agents Breaking Away: Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Kolp, P. Giorgini, and J. Mylopoulos, “An goal-based organizational perspective on multi-agents architectures,” in Procedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-2001), Seattle, WA, August 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Mylopoulos, L. K. Chung, and B. A. Nixon, “Representing and using non functional requirements: A process-oriented approach,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Newell, “The knowledge level,” Artif. Intell., vol. 18, pp. 87-127, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Nwana, “Software agents: An overview,” Knowl. Eng. Rev. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Odell, H. Parunak, and B. Bauer, “Extending UML for agents,” in G. Wagner, Y. Lesperance, and E. Yu, (eds.), Proceedings of the Agent-Oriented Information Systems Workshop at the 17th National conference on Artificial Intelligence, TX, 2000, pp. 3-17.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    OMG, OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, version 1.3, Alpha edition, January 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Perini, P. Bresciani, F. Giunchiglia, P. Giorgini, and J. Mylopoulos, “A knowledge level software engineering methodology for agent oriented programming,” in Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal CA, May 2001, ACM.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, “Modelling rational agents within a BDI-architecture,” in Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR-91) Conference, San Mateo CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Sabater, C. Sierra, S. Parsons, and N. R. Jenning, “Using multi-context systems to engineer executable agent,” in N. R. Jennings and L. Lesperance, (eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Agent Theories Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-99), number 1757 in LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 1999, pp. 277-294.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    F. Sannicol'91o, A. Perini, and F. Giunchiglia, “The Tropos modeling language. A User Guide,” Technical report, ITC-irst, December 2001.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Weiss, (ed.), Multiagent System: A modern approach to Distributed AI, MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Wooldridge, P. Ciancarini, and G. Weiss (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE-2001), Montreal, CA, May 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jeanings, “Intelligent agents: Theory and practice,” Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol. 10, no. 2, 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Wooldridge, N. R. Jennings, and D. Kinny, “The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design,” J. Autonomous Agents Multi-Agent Sys., vol. 3, no. 3, 2000.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    E. Yu, “Modeling organizations for information systems requirements engineering,” in Proceedings of the First IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, San Jose, January IEEE, 1993, pp. 34-41.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    E. Yu, Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering, PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science, 1995.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    E. Yu, “Agent-oriented modeling: Software versus the world,” in Wooldridge et al. [17].Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    E. Yu and J. Mylopoulos, “Understanding 'why' in software process modeling, analysis and design,” in Proceedings Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy, May 1994.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    E. Yu and J. Mylopoulus, “Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering,” Int. J. Intell. Syst. Account. Finance Manage., vol. 1, no. 5, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Bresciani
    • 1
  • Anna Perini
    • 1
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 2
  • Fausto Giunchiglia
    • 2
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 3
  1. 1.ITC-IrstPovo (Trento)Italy
  2. 2.Department of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversity of TrentoItaly
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations