Advertisement

Designing Cooperative IS: Exploring and Evaluating Alternatives

  • Volha Bryl
  • Paolo Giorgini
  • John Mylopoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)

Abstract

At the early stages of the cooperative information system development one of the major problems is to explore the space of alternative ways of assignment and delegations of goals among system actors. The exploration process should be guided by a number of criteria to determine whether the adopted alternative is good-enough. This paper frames the problem of designing actor dependency networks as a multi-agent planning problem and adopts an off-the-shelf planner to offer a tool (P-Tool) that generates alternative actor dependency networks, and evaluates them in terms of metrics derived from Game Theory literature. As well, we offer preliminary experimental results on the scalability of the approach.

Keywords

Game Theory Planning Problem Planning Domain Planning Language Prototype Tool 
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.
    Anderson, J.S., Fickas, S.: A proposed perspective shift: viewing specification design as a planning problem. In: IWSSD 1989: 5th Int. workshop on Software specification and design, pp. 177–184 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. JAAMAS 8(3), 203–236 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryl, V., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Designing secure systems through planning. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castillo, L., Fdez-Olivares, J., Gonzlez, A.: Integrating hierarchical and conditional planning techniques into a software design process for automated manufacturing. In: ICAPS 2003, Workshop on Planning under Uncertainty and Incomplete Information, pp. 28–39 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edelkamp, S., Hoffmann, J.: Pddl2.2: The language for the classical part of the 4th international planning competition. Technical Report 195, University of Freiburg (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Estrada. Private communication.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: Pddl2.1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains. J. Artif. Intell. Res (JAIR) 20, 61–124 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gans, G., Jarke, M., Kethers, S., Lakemeyer, G.: Modeling the impact of trust and distrust in agent networks. In: AOIS 2001, pp. 45–58 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghallab, M., Howe, A., Knoblock, C., McDermott, D., Ram, A., Veloso, M., Weld, D., Wilkins, D.: PDDL – The Planning Domain Definition Language. In: AIPS 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IPC-4 Homepage. International Planning Competition (2004), http://ls5-www.cs.uni-dortmund.de/~edelkamp/ipc-4/
  12. 12.
    Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 29(6), 53–62 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    LPG Homepage. LPG-td Planner, http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/lpg/
  14. 14.
    Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peer, J.: Web Service Composition as AI Planning – a Survey. Technical report, University of St. Gallen (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tardos, E.: Network games. In: Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements engineering in the year 00: a research perspective. In: ICSE 2000, pp. 5–19. ACM Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weld, D.S.: Recent Advances in AI Planning. AI Magazine 20(2), 93–123 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yu, E.S.-K.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. PhD thesis, University of Toronto (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volha Bryl
    • 1
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 1
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversity of TrentoPovo (TN)Italy

Personalised recommendations