Hermes: Designing Goal-Oriented Agent Interactions

  • Christopher Cheong
  • Michael Winikoff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3950)


Interactions between agents are traditionally specified as interaction protocols using notations such as Petri nets, AUML, or finite state machines. These protocols are a poor fit with autonomous proactive agents since protocols are message-centric and do not support goals. Additionally, interaction protocols prescribe how interactions are carried out by agents, thus limiting the flexibility of the interactions. This also limits robustness, by reducing the available options for recovering from failure. In this paper we propose a goal-oriented approach to interaction. Since we aim at a useful and practical approach that can be used by practising software engineers, a design methodology is an important part of our solution. We present the Hermes approach which includes a methodology for designing goal-based interactions, failure handling mechanisms, and a process for mapping design artefacts to an executable implementation.


MultiAgent System Interaction Initiator Agent Interaction Interaction Protocol Interaction Goal 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Huget, M.P., Odell, J.: Representing agent interaction protocols with agent UML. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets: An Introduction. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sirbu, M., Tygar, J.D.: NetBill: An Internet Commerce System Optimized for Network-Delivered Services. IEEE Personal Communications 2, 34–39 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutchison, J., Winikoff, M.: Flexibility and Robustness in Agent Interaction Protocols. In: Workshop on Challenges in Open Agent Systems at the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), Special Issue on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems 42, 227–253 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: 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. 527–534 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeLoach, S.A., Wood, M.F., Sparkman, C.H.: Multiagent systems engineering. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 11, 231–258 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Developing Intelligent Agent Systems: A Practical Guide. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheong, C., Winikoff, M.: Hermes: Implementing Goal-Oriented Agent Interactions. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., Seghrouchni, A.E.F. (eds.) PROMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3862, pp. 168–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flores, R.A., Kremer, R.C.: A principled modular approach to construct flexible conversation protocols. In: Tawfik, A.Y., Goodwin, S.D. (eds.) Canadian AI 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3060, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, S., Huber, M.J., Cohen, P.R.: Representing and executing protocols as joint actions. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna, Italy, pp. 543–550. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R., Huber, M.J.: Direct execution of team specifications in STAPLE. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 567–568. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R.: STAPLE: An agent programming language based on the joint intention theory. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 1390–1391. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheong, C., Winikoff, M.: Improving flexibility and robustness in agent interactions: Extending Prometheus with Hermes. In: Garcia, A., Choren, R., Lucena, C., Giorgini, P., Holvoet, T., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) SELMAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3914, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Cheong
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations