Keep Improving MAS Method Fragments: A Medee-Based Case Study for MOISE+

  • Sara Casare
  • Anarosa Alves Franco Brandao
  • Jaime Sichman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8758)

Abstract

Continuous improvement is a procedure to improve products, services or processes. In the Software Engineering domain, software process improvement means understanding existing development processes and changing them to increase product quality and reduce development costs and time. In this paper, we present the Medee Improvement Cycle, which adopts this approach to improve development methods for Multiagent Systems (MAS). Such a cycle is anchored in the Medee Method Framework, which provides means for building methods through the combination of method fragments sourced from existing Agent-Oriented Software Engineering methods (AOSE methods) and Agent Organization models (AO models). The Medee Improvement Cycle allows to continuous evolving MAS methods and fragments, taking into account a set of quality attributes, such as understandability, visibility, supportability, acceptability and robustness. We have shown through the case study how to apply this cycle to evolve fragments through their usage, instead of assuming that we have already the definitive version of them from the beginning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Basili, V.: Learning through Applications: The Maturing of the QIP in the SEL. In: Oram, A., Wilson, G. (eds.) Making Software. O’Reilly (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R.: The Experience Factory and its Relationship to Other Improvement Paradigms. In: Sommerville, I., Paul, M. (eds.) ESEC 1993. LNCS, vol. 717, pp. 68–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili, V., Weiss, D.: A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 10(3), 728–738 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonjean, N., Gleizes, M.-P., Chella, A., Migeon, F., Cossentino, M., Seidita, V.: Metamodel-Based Metrics for Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: Conitzer, Winikoff, Padgham, van der Hoek (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2012), Valencia, Spain, June 4-8 (2012), http://www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas2012/papers/
  5. 5.
    Brandão, A.A.F., Casare, S., França, D.I.: Towards automating method fragment selection for MAS. In: Proceedings of the IV Workshop on Autonomous Software Systems, AutoSoft 2013, pp. 32–40 (2013), http://cbsoft2013.unb.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Autosoft-completo.pdf
  6. 6.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casare, S.J.: Medee: A Method Framework for Multiagent Systems. PhD Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. (2012), http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3141/tde-05032012-162517/en.php
  9. 9.
    Casare, S., Brandão, A.A.F., Guessoum, Z., Sichman, J.: Medee Method Framework: A Situational Approach for Organization-Centered MAS. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (June 2013), http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10458-013-9228-y
  10. 10.
    Cernuzzi, L., Rossi, G.: On the evaluation of agent oriented modeling methods. In: Proceedings of the Agent-Oriented Methodology Workshop, pp. 21–30 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cossentino, M.: From Requirements to Code with the PASSI Methodology. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 79–106. Idea Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dam, K.H., Winikoff, M.: Comparing Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3030, pp. 78–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dignum, V.: A model for organizational interaction:based on agents, founded in logic. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harmsen, A.F.: Situational Method Engineering. Moret Ernst & Young (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hübner, J., Sichman, J., Boissier, O.: Developing organised multiagent systems using the MOISE+ model: Programming issues at the system and agent levels. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 1(3), 370–395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: Using the MOISE+ for a cooperative framework of MAS reorganization. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Labidi, S. (eds.) SBIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3171, pp. 506–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacobson, B.G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lemaıtre, C., Excelente, C.B.: Multi-agent organization approach. In: The Second Iberoamerican Workshop on Distributed AI and MAS, Toledo, Espana (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG. Object Management Group. Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification, version 2.0.2008. OMG document number: formal/2008-04-01, http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/PDF
  20. 20.
    Pavon, J., Gomez-Sanz, J., Fuentes, R.: The Ingenias Methodology and Tools. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 236–276. Idea Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A practitioner’s Approach, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 8th edn. Addison-Wesley (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sturm, A., Shehory, O.: A Framework for Evaluating Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3030, pp. 94–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uez, D., Hubner, J., Weber, C.: Método para modelagem de agentes, ambiente e organização de sistemas multiagentes. In: Proceedings of the IV Workshop on Autonomous Software Systems, AutoSoft 2013, pp. 41–50 (2013), http://cbsoft2013.unb.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Autosoft-completo.pdf
  25. 25.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and Methodology 12(3), 417–470 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Casare
    • 1
  • Anarosa Alves Franco Brandao
    • 1
  • Jaime Sichman
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratório de Técnicas Inteligentes (LTI), Escola Politécnica (EP)Universidade de São Paulo (USP)Brazil

Personalised recommendations