Advertisement

Towards Method Engineering for Multi-Agent Systems: A Validation of a Generic MAS Metamodel

  • Graham Low
  • Ghassan Beydoun
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5044)

Abstract

It is a widely accepted premise that no single methodology can be suitable for all Multi-Agent System (MAS) software projects. This premise is playing a significant role in the appearance of new methodologies at an increasing pace. To effectively harness the software engineering knowledge of methodologies, method engineering is an appealing approach. It focuses on project-specific methodology construction from existing method fragments and it requires a gen- eric product-focussed metamodel to serve as a representational infrastructure to unify existing methodologies into a single specification. As part of its ongoing validation towards method engineering for MAS development, we present our generic metamodel and illustrate in this paper its wide applicability with respect to 10 methodologies extant agent-oriented. This validation provides further evidence to support the use of our metamodel towards the construction of situated MAS methodologies.

Keywords

Multi Agent System Multiagent System Mobile Agent Method Engineering Ontology Concept 
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.
    Horlait, E.: Mobile Agents for Telecommunication Applications (Innovative Technology Series: Information Systems and Networks). Kogan Page, Portland (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guessoum, Z., Rejeb, L., Durand, R.: Using adaptive Multi-Agent Systems to Simulate Economic Models. In: AAMAS 2004. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferber, J., Drogoul, A.: Using Reactive Multi-Agent Systems in Simulation and Problem Solving. In: Avouris, L.G.N.M. (ed.) Distributed AI: Theory and Praxis. Kluwer, Brussels (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tidhar, G., et al.: Using Intelligent Agents in Military Simulation or Using Agents Intelligently. In: 11th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Papers (IAAI 1999), Orlando,Florida. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunsberger, L., Grosz, B.J.: A combinatorial auction for collaborative planning. In: 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 2000) (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hogg, T., Williams, C.: Solving the Really Hard Problems with Cooperative Search. In: 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, USA. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edmonds, B., Bryson, J.: The Insufficiency of Formal Design Methods - the necessity of an experimental approach. In: AAMAS 2004. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernon, C., Gleizes, M.-P., Peyruqueou, S., Picard, G.: ADELFE: A methodology for adaptive multi-agent systems engineering. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2577, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Developing Intelligent Agent Systems. A Practical Guide, vol. 1, p. 225. J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cossentino, M., Potts, C.: A CASE tool supported methodology for the design of multi-agent systems. In: International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP 2002), Las Vegas, NV, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernon, C., Cossentino, M., Gleizes, M.-P., Turci, P., Zambonelli, F.: A study of some multi-agent meta-models. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 62–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beydoun, G., et al.: Developing and Evaluating a Generic Metamodel for MAS Work Products. In: Garcia, A., et al. (eds.) Software Engineering for Multi-Agent Systems IV: Research Issues and Practical Applications, pp. 126–142. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Simons, A., Younessi, H.: The OPEN Toolbox of Techniques, Harlow (Essex), UK. The OPEN Series. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernon, C., Gleizes, M.-P., Peyruqueou, S., Picard, G.: ADELFE: A methodology for adaptive multi-agent systems engineering. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2577, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Esteva, M., Cruz, D.d.l., Sierra, C.: ISLANDER: an electronic institutions editor. In: International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Italy. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    da Silva, V.T., Choren, R., de Lucena, C.J.P.: Using the MAS-ML to model a multi-agent system. In: Lucena, C., Garcia, A., Romanovsky, A., Castro, J., Alencar, P.S.C. (eds.) SELMAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2940, pp. 129–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tran, Q.N.N., Low, G.C.: Comparison of Ten Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: Giorgini, B.H.-S.P. (ed.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 341–367. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: The tropos software development methodology: Processes, models and diagrams. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J.J., Weiss, G. (eds.) AOSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2585, pp. 162–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iglesias, C.A., Garijo, M.: The Agent-Oriented Methodology MAS- CommonKADS. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 46–78. IDEA Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLoach, S.A., Kumar, M.: Multi-Agent Systems Engineering: An Overview and Case Study. In: Henderson- Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 236–276. IDEA Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Firby, R.J.: Adaptive Execution in Dynamic Domains. Yale University, Yale (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garijo, F.J., Gomez-Sanz, J.J., Massonet, P.: The MESSAGE Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 203–235. IDEA Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pavon, J., Gomez-Sanz, J., Fuentest, 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
  26. 26.
    Eydoun, G., et al.: Cooperative Modeling Evaluated. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(1), 45–71 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tran, Q.-N.N., Low, G., Williams, M.-A.: A preliminary comparative feature analysis of multi-agent systems development methodologies. In: Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Low, G., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3508, pp. 157–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wood, B., et al.: A Guide to the Assessment of Software Development Methods, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jayaratna, N.: Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies: NIMSAD, a Systematic Framework. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., Tully, C.J.: Information Systems Design Methodologies - A Feature Analysis. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam (1983)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Inc., T.O.A. A Comparison of Object-Oriented Development methodologies (1995), http://www.toa.com/smnn?mcr.html
  32. 32.
    Shehory, O., Sturm, A.: Evaluation of modeling techniques for agent-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Malley, S.A., DeLoach, S.A.: Determining when to use an agent-oriented software engineering paradigm. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cernuzzi, L., Rossi, G.: On the Evaluation of Agent-Oriented Modeling Methods. In: Proceedings of the OOPSLA Workshop on Agent-Oriented Methodologies (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sabas, A., Badri, M., Delisle, S.: A Multidimentional Framework for the Evaluation of Multiagent System Methodologies. In: Proceedings of the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beydoun, G., Debenham, J., Hoffmann, A.: Using Messaging Structure to Evolve Agents Roles. In: Barley, M., Kasabov, N. (eds.) Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems VII, pp. 18–30. Springer, Australia (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham Low
    • 1
  • Ghassan Beydoun
    • 3
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
    • 2
  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Systems, Technology and ManagementUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of InformaticsUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations