Sustainable Coordination

  • Martin Fredriksson
  • Rune Gustavsson
  • Alessandro Ricci
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2586)

Abstract

Coordination, accounting for the global coherence of system behaviour, is a fundamental aspect of complex multi-agent systems. As such, coordination in multi-agent systems provides a suitable level of abstraction to deal with system organisation and control. However, current coordination approaches in multi-agent systems are not always fully equipped to model and support the global coherence of open computational systems, i.e., multi-agent systems that are situated in complex and dynamic physical environments. We therefore emphasise the critical roles of observation and construction to sustain coordination in open systems. We present the methodological framework Vocs (Visions of open computational systems), exemplified in terms of a naval multi-agent system scenario (scTwosome) and the tools explicitly developed and used in construction and observation of this system, Solace and Discern.

Keywords

Multiagent System Coordination Mechanism Sustainability Criterion Computer Support Cooperative Work Cognitive Construct 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Alberts, J. Garstka, R. Hayes, and D. Signori. Understanding Information Age Warfare. CCRP Publication Series, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bardram. Designing for the dynamics of cooperative work activities. In Proceedings of the ACM 1998 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pages 179–188. ACM Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Bergenti and A. Ricci. Three approaches in coordination of MAS. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’02). ACM Press, 2002. Track on Coordination Models, Languages and Applications.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Bussman. Self-organising manifacturing control: An industrial application of agent-technology. In E. Andre and S. Sen, editors, Proceedings pf the 4th IEEE International Conference on Multiagent Systems, pages 87–94, Boston (MA), July 2000. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Cabri, L. Leonardi, and F. Zambonelli. Context-dependency in internet-agent coordination. In A. Omicini, R. Tolksdorf, and F. Zambonelli, editors, Engineering Societies in the Agents World, volume 1972 of LNAI, pages 51–63. Springer-Verlag, Dec. 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Ciancarini, A. Omicini, and F. Zambonelli. Multiagent system engineering: the coordination viewpoint. In N. R. Jennings and Y. Lespérance, editors, Intelligent Agents VI — Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, volume 1767 of LNAI, pages 250–259. Springer-Verlag, Feb. 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Cilliers. Problem with representation. In P. Cilliers, editor, Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems, pages 58–88. Routledge, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Cortes. A coordination language for building collaborative applications. International Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 9(1):5–31, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. R. Cost, Y. Labrou, and T. Finin. Coordinating agents using agent communication languages conversations. In Omicini et al. [26], chapter 7, pages 183–196.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U. Dayal, M. Hsu, and L. Rivka. Business process coordination: State of the art, trends and open issues. In M. G. Apers, P. Atzeni, S. Ceri, S. Paraboschi, K. Ramamohanarao, and R. T. Snodgrass, editors, Proceedings of the 27th VLDB Conference, pages 3–13. Morgan Kaufmann, Sept. 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. H. Durfee. Scaling up agent coordination strategies. IEEE Computer, 34(7):39–46, July 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Evans and T. Wurstel. Strategy and the new economics of information. Harward Business Review, pages 71–82, Sept. 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Fredriksson and R. Gustavsson. A methodological perspective on engineering of agent societies. In A. Omicini, P. Petta, and R. Tolksdorf, editors, Engineering Societies in the Agents World II, volume 2203 of LNAI, pages 10–24. Springer-Verlag, Dec. 2001. 2nd International Workshop (ESAW’01), Prague, Czech Republic, 7 July 2001, Revised Papers.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Fredriksson and R. Gustavsson. Theory and practice of behavior in open computational systems. In R. Trappl, editor, Cybernetics and Systems 2002, Vienna, Austria, 2002. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies. 16th European Meeting on Cybernetics and System Research (EMCSR 2002), 2–5 Apr. 2002, Vienna, Austria, Proceedings.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Gustavsson and M. Fredriksson. Coordination and control in computational ecosystems: A vision of the future. In Omicini et al. [26], chapter 18, pages 443–469.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. A. Huberman and T. Hogg. The emergence of computational ecologies. In L. Nadel and D. Stein, editors, Lectures in Complex Systems, pages 185–205. Addison-Wesley, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Jennings. Coordination techniques for distributed artificial intelligence. In G. M. P. O'Hare and N. R. Jennings, editors, Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 187–210. Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Klusch and K. Sycara. Brokering and matchmaking for coordination of agent societies: A survey. In Omicini et al. [26], chapter 8, pages 197–224.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Labrou, T. Finin, and Y. Peng. Agent communication languages: The current landscape. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(2):45–52, March/April 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Li and R. Muntz. Coca: collaborative objects coordination architecture. In Proceedings of the ACM 1998 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pages 179–188. ACM Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Mamei, L. Leonardi, M. Mahan, and F. Zambonelli. Motion coordination for ubiquitous agents. In P. Finin and F. Perich, editors, Workshop on Ubiquitous Agents on embedded, wearable, and mobile devices-First International Joint Conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2002), 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, volume 92 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1980.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Omicini. Towards a notion of agent coordination context. In D. Marinescu and C. Lee, editors, Process Coordination and Ubiquitous Computing, pages 187–200. CRC Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Omicini and S. Ossowski. Objective versus subjective coordination in the engineering of agent systems. LNCS, 2002. In this volume.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Omicini and F. Zambonelli. Coordination for Internet application development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3):251–269, Sept. 1999. Special Issue: Coordination Mechanisms for Web Agents.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Omicini, F. Zambonelli, M. Klusch, and R. Tolksdorf, editors. Coordination of Internet Agents: Models, Technologies, and Applications. Springer-Verlag, March 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. A. Papadopoulos. Models and technologies for the coordination of Internet agents: A survey. In Omicini et al. [26], chapter 2, pages 25–56.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. V. D. Parunak, S. Brueckner, and J. Sauter. Digital pheromone mechanisms for coordination of unmanned vehicles. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems AAMAS’02, pages 449–450. ACM Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    V. D. Parunak. ‘Go To The Ant’: Engineering principles from natural agent systems. Annals of Operations Research, 75:69–101, 1997.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. D. Parunak, S. Brueckener, J. Sauter, and R. Matthews. Distinguishing environmental properties and agent dynamics: A case study in abstraction and alternate modelling technologies. In A. Omicini, R. Tolksdorf, and F. Zambonelli, editors, Engineering Societies in the Agents World, volume 1972 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, Dec. 2000.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    V. D. Parunak, J. Sauter, and S. Clask. Toward the specification and design of industrial synthetic ecosystems. In M. Singh, A. Rao, and M. Wooldridge, editors, Intelligent Agents IV. Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, volume 1365 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Ricci, A. Omicini, and E. Denti. Activity theory as a framework for mas coordination. In P. Petta, R. Tolksdorf, and F. Zambonelli, editors, Engineering Societies in the Agents World III, LNAI. Springer-Verlag, Dec. 2002.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    K. Schmidt and L. Bannon. Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. International Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1(1):7–40, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    K. Schmidt and C. Simone. Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of cscw systems design. International Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 5(2–3):155–200, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. Schmidt and C. Simone. Mind the gap! towards a unified view of CSCW. In The Fourth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems COOP 2000, May 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Schumacher. Objective Coordination in Multi-Agent System Engineering-Design and Implementation, volume 2039 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, Apr. 2001.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Singh. Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer, 31(12):40–47, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    D. Tennenhouse. Pro-active computing. Communication of ACM, 43(5):43–50, May 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Viroli and A. Omicini. Coordination as a service: Ontological and formal foundation. In A. Brogi and J.-M. Jacquet, editors, Foundations of Coordination Languages and Software Architectures-Papers from FOCLASA’02, volume 68 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier Science B. V., 2002.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communication of ACM, 40(5):80–91, May 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    P. Wegner. Interactive foundations of computing. Theoretical Computer Science, 192(2), Feb. 1998.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    P. Wegner. Toward empirical computer science. The Monist, 82(1), Jan. 1999.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    M. P. Wellman. A market-oriented programming environment and its application to distributed multicommodity flow problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1:1–23, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    M. P. Wellman and P. R. Wurman. Market-aware agents for a multiagent world. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24:115–125, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    F. Zambonelli, N. R. Jennings, A. Omicini, and M. J. Wooldridge. Agent-oriented software engineering for Internet applications. In Omicini et al. [26], chapter 13, pages 326–346.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    F. Zambonelli and V. D. Parunak. Signs of a revolution in computer science and software engineering. In P. Petta, R. Tolksdorf, and F. Zambonelli, editors, Working Notes of the third International Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agent World (ESAW’ 02), Sept. 2002. Technical Report TR-2002-35, Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Fredriksson
    • 1
  • Rune Gustavsson
    • 1
  • Alessandro Ricci
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering and Computer ScienceBlekinge Institute of TechnologyRonnebySweden
  2. 2.DEIS, Università di Bologna a CesenaCesenaItaly

Personalised recommendations