Modularity in Agent Programming Languages

An Illustration in Extended 2APL
  • Mehdi Dastani
  • Christian P. Mol
  • Bas R. Steunebrink
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5357)


This paper discusses a module-based vision for designing BDI-based multi-agent programming languages. The introduced concept of modules is generic and facilitates the implementation of different agent concepts such as agent roles and agent profiles, and enables common programming techniques such as encapsulation and information hiding for BDI-based agents. This vision is applied to 2APL, which is an existing BDI-based agent programming language. Specific programming constructs are added to 2APL to allow the implementation of modules. The syntax and intuitive meaning of these programming constructs are provided as well as the operational semantics of one of the programming constructs. Some informal properties of the programming constructs are discussed and it is explained how these modules can be used to implement agent roles, agent profiles, or the encapsulation of BDI concepts.


Operational Semantic Transition Rule Work Agent Ground Atom Programming 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Lamersdorf, W.: Extending the Capability Concept for Flexible BDI Agent Modularization. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3862, pp. 139–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Busetta, P., Howden, N., Ronnquist, R., Hodgson, A.: Structuring BDI Agents in Functional Clusters. In: Jennings, N., Lesperance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1757, pp. 277–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dastani, M.: 2APL: A practical agent programming language. International Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 16(3), 214–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.: A practical agent programming language. In: Dastani, M., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A., Ricci, A., Winikoff, M. (eds.) ProMAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4908. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dastani, M., Mol, C.P., Steunebrink, B.R.: Modularity in Agent Programming Languages: An Illustration in Extended 2APL. Technical Report UU-CS-2008-022, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hindriks, K.: Modules as policy-based intentions: Modular agent programming in goal. In: Dastani, M., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A., Ricci, A., Winikoff, M. (eds.) ProMAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4908, Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.C., de Boer, F.S.: Goal-Oriented Modularity in Agent Programming. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2006, pp. 1271–1278 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Dastani
    • 1
  • Christian P. Mol
    • 1
  • Bas R. Steunebrink
    • 1
  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations