A Study on the Mechanism for Mobile Embedded Agent Development Based on Product Line

  • Haeng-Kon Kim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3482)

Abstract

In most mobile embedded agent systems (MEAS), agents are required to achieve their own goals. An agent’s goals, however, can conflict with others either when agents compete with each other to achieve a common goal or when they have to use a set of limited resources to accomplish agents’ divergent goals. In either case, agents need to be designed to reach a mutual acceptable state where they can avoid any goal conflicts through negotiation with others to achieve their goals. In this paper, we consider that a ABCD architecture, as a shorthand for Architecture platform, Business, Common, and Domain is a core component of agents’ mental attitudes and represent resource-bounded ABCD agents in logic programming framework. We propose an algorithm in which ABCD agents with different goals solve their problems through negotiation resolving goal conflicts. Finally, we develop a negotiation meta-language to show the effectiveness of the negotiation system proposed in this paper.

Keywords

Multi-Agent Systems ABCD Agents Negotiation ACL Logic Programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Multi-issue Negotiation under Time Constraints. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anthony, P., Hall, W., Dang, V., Jennings, N.R.: Autonomous Agents for Participating in Multiple On-line Auctions. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Workshop on E-Business and the Intelligent Web, pp. 54–64 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: A Proposal for a New KQML Specification. Technical Report CS-97-03, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland Baltimore County (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) (2000), http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/
  7. 7.
    Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S.: Languages for Negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., et al.: Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML. Addison Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haeng-Kon Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Information and Communication EngineeringCatholic University of DaeguKyungbukRep. of Korea

Personalised recommendations