A Need for Biologically Inspired Architectural Description: The Agent Ontogenesis Case

  • Terence L. van Zyl
  • Elizabeth M. Ehlers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5044)


Biologically inspired complex adaptive systems (BICAS) have and will continue to move from research laboratories into industry. As the abstractions presented by biologically inspired systems move into industry, systems architects will be required to include the abstractions in their architectural descriptions (ADs) in order to communicate the design to system implementers. The paper argues that in order to correctly present the architectures of BICAS an additional set of biologically inspired views will be required. The paper then describes a set of additional biologically inspired architectural views for use when describing the architecture of BICAS. Finally the paper constructs a set of viewpoints for the biologically inspired views and demonstrates their use in agent ontogenesis. The paper also demonstrates the usage of a number of techniques for describing the architecture of BICAS.


Architectural Description Agent Ontogenesis Biologically Inspired Complex Adaptive Systems Architectural Views 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gell-Mann, M.: What is Complexity? Complexity, 1 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cliff, D.: Biologically-Inspired Computing Approaches to Cognitive Systems: A Partial Tour of the Literature. HPL-2003-11 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., et al.: Agent technology: Computing as interaction (A roadmap for agent based computing) (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andronache, V., Scheutz, M.: Integrating Theory and Practice: The Agent Architecture Framework APOC and its Development Environment ADE, pp. 1014–1021 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cervenka, R., Greenwood, D., Trencansky, I.: The AML Approach to Modeling Autonomic Systems. ICAS 0, 29 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faulkner, S., Kolp, M.: Towards an Agent Architectural Description Language for Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, J., Mao, X., Shu, Y.: An OO-Based Design Model of Software Agent, pp. 434–440 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pagliarecci, F., Spalazzi, L., Capuzzi, G.: Formal Definition of an Agent-Object Programming Language. CTS 0, 298–305 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shan, L., Zhu, H.: Modelling and Specifying Scenarios and Agent Behaviour, p. 32 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tahara, Y., Ohsuga, A., Honiden, S.: Pigeon: A Specification Language for Mobile Agent Applications. AAMAS 03, 1356–1357 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunter, L., Lathrop, R.H.: Guest Editors’ Introduction-Computer Science and Biology: An Unlikely Pair. IEEE Intelligent Systems 17, 8–10 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    King, R.C., Stansfield, W.D., Mulligan, P.K.: A dictionary of genetics. Oxford University Press, US (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oxford english disctionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hartl, D., Jones, E.: Genetics: Analysis of Genes and Genomes, 6th edn. Jones & Bartlett (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Balon, E. K.: Epigenesis of an Epigeneticist: The Development of some Alternative Concepts on the Early Ontogeny and Evolution of Fishes. Guelph Ichthyology Reviews 1 (1990) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sipper, M., Sanchez, E., Mange, D., et al.: A Phylogenetic, Ontogenetic, and Epigenetic View of Bio-Inspiredhardware Systems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1, 83–97 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems. IEEE Std 1471-2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hilliard, R.: Viewpoint Modeling. In: Proceedings of 1st ICSE Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kruchten, P.: The 4+1 View Model of Architecture. IEEE Softw. 12, 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKinley, P.K., Sadjadi, S.M., Kasten, E.P., et al.: Composing Adaptive Software. Computer 37, 56–64 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grone, B., Knopfel, A., Tabeling, P.: Component Vs. Component: Why we Need More than One Definition, pp. 550–552 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rakotonirainy, A., Bond, A.: A Simple Architecture Description Model, p. 278 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, M., Wang, H.: Intelligent Agent Supported Flexible Workflow Monitoring System, pp. 787–791 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Land, R.: A Brief Survey of Software Architecture. Malardalen Real-Time Research Center, Malardalen University, Vasteras, Sweden, Tech. Rep. (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Putman, J.R.: Architecting with rm-odp. Prentice Hall PTR (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kruchten, P.: The rational unified process: An introduction. Addison-Wesley Professional (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaw, M., DeLine, R., Klein, D.V., et al.: Abstractions for Software Architecture and Tools to Support them. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21, 314–335 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jennings, N.R.: An Agent-Based Approach for Building Complex Software Systems. Commun. ACM 44, 35–41 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wooldridge, M.: Intelligent Agents: The Key Concepts, pp. 3–43 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beer, R.D.: The Dynamics of Active Categorical Perception in an Evolved Model Agent. Adapt. Behav. 11, 209 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weyns, D., Omicini, A., Odell, J.: Environment as a First Class Abstraction in Multiagent Systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 14, 5–30 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Okuyama, F.Y., Bordini, R.H., da Costa, R., Carlos, A.: ELMS: An Environment Description Language for Multi-Agent Simulation. In: Environments for Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 91–108 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang, J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Using Temporal Logic to Specify Adaptive Program Semantics. The Journal of Systems & Software 79, 1361–1369 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Zyl, T.L., Marais, E., Ehlers, E.M.: An implementation of resource negotiating agents in telemanufacturing. In: Sixth International Symposium on Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Dynamic Structure in Software Architectures, pp. 3–14 (1996)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Self-Managed Systems: An Architectural Challenge, pp. 259–268 (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Allen, R., Douence, R., Garlan, D.: Specifying and Analyzing Dynamic Software Architectures. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, 21 (1998)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bradbury, J.S., Cordy, J.R., Dingel, J., et al.: A Survey of Self-Management in Dynamic Software Architecture Specifications, pp. 28–33 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Agent-Oriented Software Engineering. Handbook of Agent Technology. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wooldridge, M.J., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 285–312 (2000)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wood, M.F., DeLoach, S.A.: An overview of the multiagent systems engineering methodology. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 207–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wooldridge, M., Ciancarini, P.: Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: The State of the Art. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 1–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Odell, J.J., Van Dyke Parunak, H., 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
  44. 44.
    Weyns, D., Holvoet, T.: A reference architecture for situated multiagent systems. In: Environments for Multiagent Systems III, 3th International Workshop, E4MAS, Hakodate, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Frankel, D.: Model driven architecture. Wiley, New York (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terence L. van Zyl
    • 1
  • Elizabeth M. Ehlers
    • 1
  1. 1.Academy of Information TechnologyUniversity of JohannesburgAuckland ParkSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations