Advertisement

Prometheus Research Directions

  • Lin Padgham
  • John Thangarajah
  • Michael Winikoff
Chapter

Abstract

Prometheus is a well-established and widely used methodology. In this chapter, we briefly review the methodology and then discuss a number of active research directions. The key research directions that we discuss are: automated testing of agent systems, including test coverage; development of agent systems that are structured as teams , and of open agent systems that operate within Electronic Institutions; and the design and representation of agent interaction. We also briefly present the Prometheus Design Tool (PDT) and conclude with a brief look at other areas for future work.

Keywords

Agent-oriented software engineering Interaction design Prometheus Teams and organizations Testing 

References

  1. 1.
    Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheong C, Winikoff M (2009) Hermes: designing flexible and robust agent interactions. In: Dignum V (ed) Multi-agent systems: semantics and dynamics of organizational models, Chap. 5. IGI, Hershey, pp 105–139Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dam HK, Winikoff M (2011) An agent-oriented approach to change propagation in software maintenance. J Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 23(3):384–452. doi:10.1007/s10458-010-9163-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dam HK, Winikoff M (2013) Towards a next-generation AOSE methodology. Sci Comput Program 78:684–694 doi:10.1016/j.scico.2011.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dastani M, Hindriks KV, Meyer JJC (eds) (2010) Specification and verification of multi-agent systems. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLoach SA, Padgham L, Perini A, Susi A, Thangarajah J (2009) Using three AOSE toolkits to develop a sample design. Int J Agent-Oriented Software Eng 3(4):416–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum F, Dignum V, Thangarajah J, Padgham L, Winikoff M (2008) Open agent systems. In: Agent-oriented software engineering VIII. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4951. Springer, pp 73–87Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flores RA, Kremer RC (2004) A pragmatic approach to build conversation protocols using social commitments. In: Jennings NR, Sierra C, Sonenberg L, Tambe M (eds) Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS). ACM, pp 1242–1243Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Georgeff M (2009) The gap between software engineering and multi-agent systems: bridging the divide. Int J Agent-Oriented Software Eng 3(4):391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henderson-Sellers B (2010) Consolidating diagram types from several agent-oriented methodologies. In: Proceeding of the 2010 conference on new trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (SoMeT). IOS, The Netherlands, pp 293–345Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jarvis J, Rönnquist R, McFarlane D, Jain L (2006) A team-based holonic approach to robotic assembly cell control. J Netw Comput Appl 29(2–3):160–176. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2004.10.001Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayatilleke GB, Padgham L, Winikoff M (2005) A model driven component-based development framework for agents. Int J Comput Syst Sci Eng 4(20):273–283Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khallouf J, Winikoff M (2009) Goal-oriented design of agent systems: a refinement of prometheus and its evaluation. Int J Agent-Oriented Software Eng 3(1):88–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar S, Huber MJ, Cohen PR (2002) Representing and executing protocols as joint actions. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent Systems. ACM, Bologna, pp 543–550Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macal CM, North MJ (2008) Agent-based modeling and simulation: ABMS examples. In: Mason SJ, Hill RR, Mönch L, Rose O, Jefferson T, Fowler JW (eds) Winter Simulation Conference, (WSC 2008) Miami, Florida. WSC, pp 101–112, 7–10 December 2008Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller T, Padgham L, Thangarajah J (2010) Test coverage criteria for agent interaction testing. In: Weyns D, Gleizes MP (eds) Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Agent Oriented Software Engineering, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    North MJ, Collier NT, Vos JR (2006) Experiences creating three implementations of the repast agent modeling toolkit. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul 16(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Padgham L, Perepletchikov M (2007) Prioritisation mechanisms to support incremental development of agent systems. Int J Agent-Oriented Software Eng 1(3/4):477–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Padgham L, Winikoff M (2004) Developing intelligent agent systems: a practical guide. Wiley series in agent technology. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Padgham L, Winikoff M, Poutakidis D (2005) Adding debugging support to the prometheus methodology. J Eng Appl Artif Intell 18(2):173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poutakidis D, Winikoff M, Padgham L, Zhang Z (2009) Debugging and testing of multi-agent systems using design artefacts. In: Bordini RH, Dastani M, Dix J, El Fallah Seghrouchni A (eds) Multi-agent programming: languages, tools, and applications, Chap 7. Springer, pp 215–258Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sierra C, Thangarajah J, Padgham L, Winikoff M (2007) Designing institutional multi-agent systems. In: Padgham L, Zambonelli F (eds) Agent Oriented Software Engineering VII: 7th International Workshop, AOSE 2006. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 84–103Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thangarajah J, Jayatilleke GB, Padgham L (2011) Scenarios for system requirements traceability and testing. In: Sonenberg L, Stone P, Tumer K, Yolum P (eds) 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, vol 1–3. IFAAMAS, pp 285–292, 2–6 May 2011Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winikoff M (2005) JACKTM Intelligent agents: an industrial strength platform. In: Bordini RH, Dastani M, Dix J, Fallah-Seghrouchni AE (eds) Multi-agent programming: languages, platforms and applications. Springer, pp 175–193Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winikoff M (2007) Defining syntax and providing tool support for Agent UML using a textual notation. Int J Agent-Oriented Software Eng 1(2):123–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Winikoff M, Cranefield S (2008) On the testability of BDI agent systems. Information Science Discussion Paper Series 2008/03, University of Otago, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Winikoff M, Padgham L (2013) Agent oriented software engineering. In: Weiß G (ed) Multiagent systems, Chap 15, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yolum P, Singh MP (2002) Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Proceedings of the 1st Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp 527–534Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang Z (2011) Automated unit testing of agent systems. Ph.D. thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang Z, Thangarajah J, Padgham L (2008) Automated unit testing intelligent agents in PDT. In: 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), Demo Proceedings, Estoril, Portugal. IFAAMAS, pp 1673–1674, 12–16 May 2008Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Z, Thangarajah J, Padgham L (2011) Automated testing for intelligent agent systems. In: Gleizes MP, Gómez-Sanz JJ (eds) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering X - 10th International Workshop, AOSE 2009, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6038, Budapest, Hungary. Springer, pp 66–79, 11–12 May 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lin Padgham
    • 1
  • John Thangarajah
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 2
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations