Advertisement

Improving the Design and Modularity of BDI Agents with Capability Relationships

  • Ingrid Nunes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8758)

Abstract

The belief-desire-intention (BDI) architecture has been proposed to support the development of rational agents, integrating theoretical foundations of BDI agents, their implementation, and the building of large-scale multi-agent applications. However, the BDI architecture, as initially proposed, does not provide adequate concepts to produce intra-agent modular software components. The capability concept emerged to address this issue, but the relationships among capabilities have been insufficiently explored to support the development of BDI agents. We thus, in this paper, propose the use of three different types of relationships between capabilities in BDI agent development — namely association, composition and generalisation — which are widely used in object-oriented software development, and are fundamental to develop software components with low coupling and high cohesion. Our goal with this paper is to promote the exploitation of these and other mechanisms to develop large-scale modular multi-agent systems and discussion about this important issue of agent-oriented software engineering.

Keywords

Capability Modularisation BDI Architecture Agent- oriented Development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Autonomous Decision-Making Software (AOS): Jack intelligent agents: Jack manual. Tech. Rep. 4.1, Agent Oriented Software Pvt. Ltd, Melbourne, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordini, R.H., Wooldridge, M., Hübner, J.F.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. John Wiley & Sons (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Lamersdorf, W.: Extending the capability concept for flexible BDI agent modularization. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) ProMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3862, pp. 139–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busetta, P., Howden, N., Rönnquist, R., Hodgson, A.: Structuring BDI agents in functional clusters. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) Intelligent Agents VI. LNCS, vol. 1757, pp. 277–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-oriented Software. Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia, A., Lucena, C.: Taming heterogeneous agent architectures. Commun. ACM 51(5), 75–81 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howden, N., Rönnquista, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: Jack intelligent agentsTM: Summary of an agent infrastructure. In: The Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nunes, I., Cirilo, E., Cowan, D., Lucena, C.: Fine-grained variability in the development of families of software agents. In: Sabater-Mir, J. (ed.) 7th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2009), Cyprus (December 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nunes, I., Cowan, D., Cirilo, E., de Lucena, C.J.P.: A case for new directions in agent-oriented software engineering. In: Weyns, D., Gleizes, M.-P. (eds.) AOSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6788, pp. 37–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nunes, I., Lucena, C., Luck, M.: Bdi4jade: a bdi layer on top of jade. In: ProMAS 2011, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 88–103 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nunes, I., de Lucena, C.J.P., Cowan, D., Alencar, P.: Building service-oriented user agents using a software product line approach. In: Edwards, S.H., Kulczycki, G. (eds.) ICSR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5791, pp. 236–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nunes, I., Lucena, C.J.P.D., Cowan, D., Kulesza, U., Alencar, P., Nunes, C.: Developing multi-agent system product lines: from requirements to code. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Softw. Eng. 4(4), 353–389 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Padgham, L., Lambrix, P.: Formalisations of capabilities for bdi-agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 10(3), 249–271 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Penserini, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., Mylopoulos, J.: From capability specifications to code for multi-agent software. In: 21st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2006, pp. 253–256. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Haubeck, C., Ladiges, J.: Programming BDI agents with pure java. In: Müller, J.P., Weyrich, M., Bazzan, A.L.C. (eds.) MATES 2014. LNCS, vol. 8732, pp. 216–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: Jadex: A bdi reasoning engine. In: Multi-Agent Programming, pp. 149–174. Springer (September 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI-agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First Intl. Conference on Multiagent Systems, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.C., de Boer, F.S.: Goal-oriented modularity in agent programming. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2006, pp. 1271–1278. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sant’Anna, C., Lobato, C., Kulesza, U., Garcia, A., Chavez, C., Lucena, C.: On the modularity assessment of aspect-oriented multiagent architectures: A quantitative study. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Softw. Eng. 2(1), 34–61 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Nunes
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de InformáticaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)Porto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations