Advertisement

Building the Core Architecture of a NASA Multiagent System Product Line

  • Joaquin Peña
  • Michael G. Hinchey
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
  • Pablo Trinidad
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4405)

Abstract

The field of Software Product Lines (SPL) emphasizes building a family of software products from which concrete products can be derived rapidly. This helps to reduce time-to-market, costs, etc., and can result in improved software quality and safety. Current Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) methodologies are concerned with developing a single Multiagent System. The main contribution of this paper is a proposal to developing the core architecture of a Multiagent Systems Product Line (MAS-PL), exemplifying our approach with reference to a concept NASA mission based on multiagent technology.

Keywords

Feature Model Multiagent System Software Product Line Role Plan Solar Sail 
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.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peña, J., Hinchey, M.G., Ruíz-Cortes, A.: Multiagent system product lines: Challenges and benefits. Communications of the ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pena, J.: On Improving The Modelling Of Complex Acquaintance Organisations Of Agents. A Method Fragment For The Analysis Phase. PhD thesis, University of Seville (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang, K., et al.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen, A., et al.: First class feature abstractions for product derivation. IEE Proceedings - Software 151, 187–198 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smaragdakis, Y., Batory, D.: Mixin layers: an object–oriented implementation technique for refinements and collaboration-based designs. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11, 215–255 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Souza, D., Wills, A.: Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reenskaug, T.: Working with Objects: The OOram Software Engineering Method. Manning Publications, Greenwich (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: the GAIA methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 12 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odell, J., Parunak, H., Fleischer, M.: The role of roles in designing effective agent organisations. In: Garcia, A.F., et al. (eds.) Software Engineering for Large-Scale Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS, vol. 2603, pp. 27–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parunak, H.V.D., Odell, J.: Representing social structures in UML. In: Müller, J.P., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada, pp. 100–101. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kendall, E.A.: Role modeling for agent system analysis, design, and implementation. IEEE Concurrency 8, 34–41 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peña, J., Levy, R., Corchuelo, R.: Towards clarifying the importance of interactions in agent-oriented software engineering. International Iberoamerican Journal of AI 9, 19–28 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peña, J., Corchuelo, R., Arjona, J.L.: A top down approach for mas protocol descriptions. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing SAC’03, Melbourne, Florida, USA, pp. 45–49. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG: Unified modeling language: Superstructure. version 2.0. Final adopted specification ptc/03–08–02, OMG (2003), http://www.omg.org
  18. 18.
    Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Trinidad, P.: Automated reasoning on feature models. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 491–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benavides, D., et al.: A survey on the automated analyses of feature models. XV Jornadas de Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos, JISBD 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peña, J., Corchuelo, R., Arjona, J.L.: Towards Interaction Protocol Operations for Large Multi-agent Systems. In: Hinchey, M.G., et al. (eds.) FAABS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2699, pp. 79–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liskov, B., Wing, J.M.: Specifications and their use in defining subtypes. In: Proceedings of the eighth annual conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, pp. 16–28. ACM Press, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peña, J., et al.: Managing the evolution of an enterprise architecture using a mas-product-line approach. In: 5th International Workshop on System/Software Architectures (IWSSA’06), Nevada, USA, CSREA Press, to be published (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joaquin Peña
    • 1
  • Michael G. Hinchey
    • 2
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
    • 1
  • Pablo Trinidad
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SevilleSpain
  2. 2.NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations