SAMBA — An Agent architecture for Ambient Intelligence Elements Interoperability

  • Arne-Jørgen Berre
  • Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo
  • Djamel Khadraoui
  • François Charoy
  • George Athanasopoulos
  • Michael Pantazoglou
  • Jean-Henry Morin
  • Pavlos Moraitis
  • Nikolaos Spanoudakis
Conference paper

Abstract

The SAMBA (Systems for AMBient intelligence enabled by Agents) architecture reported here is a conceptual service-oriented architecture supporting the interaction and interoperability of systems, applications and actors by the notion of an “Ambient Intelligence Element Society”. The objective is to provide an ecosystem infrastructure supporting the interaction and interoperability of various elements by encapsulating and representing them through agents acting as members of an Ambient Intelligence Elements Society, and by using executable models at run-time in support of interoperability.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

3 References

  1. [1]
    ATHENA project: www.athena-ip,netGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    FIPA — Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, http://www.fipa.org/Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    INTEROP project: www.interop-noe.netGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    MODELWARE and MODELPLEX projects: http://www.modelbased.netGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    OMG MDA, www.omg.org/mdaGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    SODIUM: http://www.atc.gr/sodiumGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    SWING: http://www.sintef.no/content/page1883.aspxGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Web Services Interoperability Organization: http://www.ws-i.orgGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    WS-I Basic Profile v1.1, http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Athanasopoulos G, Tsalgatidou A, Pantazoglou M (2006) Interoperability among Heterogeneous Services. In: Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC’ 06): 174–181.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Dimopoulos Y, Kakas A, Moraitis, P (2005) Argumentation Based Modeling of Embedded Agent Dialogues. In: Proc. of 2nd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, (ArgMAS’05).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Georgiadis I, Magee J, Kramer J (2003) Self-organising software architectures for distributed systems. In: Wolf A, Garlan D, Kramer, J (eds) Proc. of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT Workshop on Self-Healing Systems (WOSS’02): 33–38.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kakas A, Moraitis P (2003) Argumentation Based Decision Making for Autonomous Agents. In: Proc. of 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’03): 883–890.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kakas A, Maudet N, Moraitis, P (2004) Layered strategies and protocols for argumentation-based agent interaction. In: Proc. of 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS’04).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kakas A, Maudet N, Moraitis, P (2005) Modular Representation of Agent Interaction Rules through Argumentation. In: Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, (JAAMAS), Springer US, 11(2): 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Kutvonen L, Ruokolainen T, Metso J, Haataja J (2005) Interoperability middleware for federated enterprise applications in Web-Pilarcos. In: Konstantas D, Bourrières JP, Léonard M, Boudjlida N (eds) Proc. of 1st International Conference on Interoperability for Enterprise Software and Applications (I-ESA’05): 185–196.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    McBurney P, Parsons S (2002) Games that agents play: a formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. In: Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11(3): 315–334.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Oriol M, Di Marzo Serugendo G (2004) A disconnected service architecture for unanticipated run-time evolution of code. In: IEE Proceedings-Software, 151(2): 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Parsons S, McBurney P, Wooldridge M (2003) The mechanics of some formal interagent dialogue. In: Proc. of Workshop on Agent Communication Languages: 329–348.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Pautasso C, Heinis T, Alonso G (2005) D6-SODIUM Unified Service Composition Language (USCL), SODIUM project IST-FP6-004559 deliverable, June 2005.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C (eds.) (2005) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Proceedings of the First International Workshop (ArgMAS’04) LNAI, Volume 3366, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Tsalgatidou A, Pantazoglou M, Athanasopoulos, G (2005) D8-Specification of the Unified Service Query Language (USQL), SODIUM project IST-FP6-004559 deliverable, June 2005.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Walton DN, Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning, State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arne-Jørgen Berre
    • 1
  • Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo
    • 2
  • Djamel Khadraoui
    • 3
  • François Charoy
    • 4
  • George Athanasopoulos
    • 5
  • Michael Pantazoglou
    • 5
  • Jean-Henry Morin
    • 6
  • Pavlos Moraitis
    • 7
  • Nikolaos Spanoudakis
    • 8
  1. 1.SINTEFBlindern, OsloNorway
  2. 2.Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonUK
  3. 3.Centre de Recherche Henri TudorLuxembourg
  4. 4.University Henri PoincaréFrance
  5. 5.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensGreece
  6. 6.Korea University Business SchoolSeoulKorea
  7. 7.René Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  8. 8.Singular Logic SAGreece

Personalised recommendations