Hermes: Implementing Goal-Oriented Agent Interactions

  • Christopher Cheong
  • Michael Winikoff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3862)


Traditional approaches to designing agent interactions focus on defining agent interaction in terms of legal sequences of messages. These message-centric approaches are not a good match with autonomous proactive agents since they unnecessarily limit the agents’ autonomy and flexibility. The Hermes methodology proposes an approach for designing agent interactions in terms of interaction goals. In this paper we focus on how Hermes designs can be implemented by mapping the design artefacts to collections of plans.


MultiAgent System Autonomous Agent Coordination Plan Agent Interaction Action Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Huget, M.P., Odell, J.: Representing agent interaction protocols with agent UML. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheong, C., Winikoff, M.: Hermes: A Methodology for Goal-Oriented Agent Interactions (Poster). In: The Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems (2005) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheong, C., Winikoff, M.: Hermes: Designing goal-oriented agent interactions. In: Müller, J.P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) AOSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3950, pp. 16–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: Jadex: Implementing a BDI-Infrastructure for JADE Agents. EXP - In Search of Innovation (Special Issue on JADE) 3, 76–85 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sirbu, M., Tygar, J.D.: NetBill: An Internet Commerce System Optimized for Network- Delivered Services. IEEE Personal Communications 2, 34–39 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hutchison, J., Winikoff, M.: Flexibility and Robustness in Agent Interaction Protocols. In: Workshop on Challenges in Open Agent Systems at the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), Special Issue on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems 42, 227–253 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Proceedings of the 1st Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 527–534 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLoach, S.A., Wood, M.F., Sparkman, C.H.: Multiagent systems engineering. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 11, 231–258 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Developing Intelligent Agent Systems: A Practical Guide. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mbala, A., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Design options for subscription managers. In: Kolp, M., Bresciani, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3529, pp. 259–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flores, R.A., Kremer, R.C.: A principled modular approach to construct flexible conversation protocols. In: Tawfik, A.Y., Goodwin, S.D. (eds.) Canadian AI 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3060, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, S., Huber, M.J., Cohen, P.R.: Representing and executing protocols as joint actions. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna, Italy, pp. 543–550. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R., Huber, M.J.: Direct execution of team specifications in STAPLE. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi- Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 567–568. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R.: STAPLE: An agent programming language based on the joint intention theory. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 1390–1391. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Cheong
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations