MAS Meta-models on Test: UML vs. OPM in the SODA Case Study

  • Ambra Molesini
  • Enrico Denti
  • Andrea Omicini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3690)


In the AOSE (Agent-Oriented Software Engineering) area, several research efforts are underway to develop appropriate meta-models for agent-oriented methodologies. Meta-models are meant to check and verify the completeness and expressiveness of methodologies.

In this paper, we put to test the well-established standard Unified Modelling Language (UML), and the emergent Object Process Methodology (OPM), and compare their meta-modelling power. Both UML and OPM are used to express the meta-model of SOFA, an agent-oriented methodology which stresses interaction and social aspects of MASs (multi-agent systems). Meta-modelling SOFA allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of the two approaches over both the structural and dynamics parts. Furthermore, this allow us to find out some desirable features that any effective approach to meta-modelling MAS methodologies should exhibit.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van Hillegersberg, J., Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Using metamodeling to analyze the fit of object-oriented methods to languages. In: 31st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 1998), Modeling Technologies and Intelligent Systems, Kohala Coast, HI, USA, vol. 5, pp. 323–332. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernon, C., Cossentino, M., Gleizes, M.P., Turci, P., Zambonelli, F.: A study of some multi-agent meta-models. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 62–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agent and Multi-Agent Systems 3(8), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gòmez-Sanz, J.J., Pavòn, J., Garijo, F.: Meta-models for building multi-agent systems. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2002), pp. 37–41. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    UML: Home page
  7. 7.
    Dori, D., Reinhartz-Berger, I.: An OPM-based metamodel of system development process. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 105–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peleg, M., Dori, D.: The model multiplicity problem: Experimenting with real-time specification methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26, 742–759 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dori, D.: Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic System Paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 12, 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheong, C., Winikoff, M.: Hermes: A methodology for goal-oriented agent interactions. In: 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Poster (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Omicini, A.: SODA: Societies and infrastructures in the analysis and design of agent-based systems. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 185–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ciancarini, P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F.: Multiagent system engineering: The coordination viewpoint. In: Jennings, N.R., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, pp. 15–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic standard. Information & Software Technology 47, 49–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., McBride, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A metamodel for assessable software development methodologies. Software Quality Journal 13, 195–214 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ambra Molesini
    • 1
  • Enrico Denti
    • 1
  • Andrea Omicini
    • 2
  1. 1.DEIS, Alma Mater StudiorumUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.DEIS, Alma Mater StudiorumUniversità di Bologna a CesenaCesenaItaly

Personalised recommendations