Advertisement

A Dedicated Approach for Developing Agent Interaction Protocols

  • Ayodele Oluyomi
  • Leon Sterling
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3371)

Abstract

Much current research is focussed on developing agent interaction protocols (AIPs) that will ensure seamless interaction amongst agents in multi agent systems. The research covers areas such as desired properties of AIPs, reasoning about interaction types, languages and tools for representing AIPs, and implementing AIPs. However, there has been little work on defining the structural make up of an agent interaction protocol, or defining dedicated approaches for developing agent interaction protocols from a clear problem definition to the final specification. This paper addresses these gaps. We present a dedicated approach for developing agent interaction protocols. Our approach is driven by an analysis of the application domain and our proposed structured agent interaction protocol definition.

Keywords

Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Interaction Protocol Protocol Structure Message Structure 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wooldridge, M., Ciancarini, P.: Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: The State of the Art. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1957, pp. 1–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bussman, S., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Re-use of interaction protocols for agent-based control applications. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J.J., Weiss, G. (eds.) AOSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2585, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koning, J.L.: Compiling a conversation policy’s Implementation from its validated specification model. In: International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications, Las Vegas, USA (June 2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Juan, T., Pearce, A., Sterling, L.: ROADMAP: Extending the Gaia Methodology for Complex Open Systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Int. Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Bologna, Italy, pp. 3–10 (July 2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huget, M.-P., Koning, J.-L.: Requirement analysis for interaction protocols. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2691, p. 404. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy (July 2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paurobally, S., Cunningham, R.: Achieving common interaction protocols in open agent environments. In: AAMAS (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    FIPA Specification. Foundation for Intelligent and Physical Agents, http://www.fipa.org/repository
  9. 9.
    Juan, T., Sterling, L.: A Meta-model for Intelligent Adaptive Multi-Agent Systems in Open Environments (Poster). In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Melbourne, Australia (July 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koning, J.L., Hugget, M.P.: Interaction Protocol design: Application to an agent-based teleteaching project. In: The Second IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI 2003) (August 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koning, J.L.: Designing and testing negotiation protocols for electronic commerce applications, pp. 34–60, Electronic Edition (Springer LINK)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    König, R.: State-Based Modeling Method for Multiagent Conversation Protocols and Decision Activities. In: Agent Technologies, Infrastructures, Tools, and Applications for E-Services, pp. 151–166 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greaves, M., Holmback, H., Bradshaw, J.: What is a conversation policy? In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1916, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seghrouchni, A.E.F., Haddad, S., Mazouzi, H.: A formal study of interactions in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of ISCA International Conference in Computer and their Applications (CATA 1999) (April 1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N., Kinny, D.: The Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Juan, T., Sterling, L., Martelli, M., Mascardi, V.: Customizing AOSE Methodologies by Reusing AOSE Features. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Melbourne Australia, pp. 113–120 (July 2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paurobally, S., Cunningham, R., Jennings, N.R.: Developing agent interaction protocols using graphical and logical methodologies. In: Workshop on Programming MAS, AAMAS (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Odell, J., Parunak, H.V.D., Bauer, B.: Representing Agent Interaction Protocols in UML. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 121–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bartolini, C., Preist, C., Jennings, N.R.: Architecting for reuse: a software framework for automated negotiation. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J.J., Weiss, G. (eds.) AOSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2585, pp. 87–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nodine, M.H., Unruh, A.: Constructing robust conversation policies in dynamic agent communities. Technical Report MCC-INSL-020-99, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perugini, D., Lambert, D., Sterling, L., Pearce, A.: Provisional Agreement Protocol for Global Transportation Scheduling. In: Workshop on agents in traffic and transportation held in conjunction with the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS), New York (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayodele Oluyomi
    • 1
  • Leon Sterling
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Software EngineeringThe University of MelbourneCarltonAustralia

Personalised recommendations