Advertisement

Evaluation of Agent–Oriented Software Methodologies – Examination of the Gap Between Modeling and Platform

  • Jan Sudeikat
  • Lars Braubach
  • Alexander Pokahr
  • Winfried Lamersdorf
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3382)

Abstract

More and more effort is made to provide methodologies for the development of agent–based systems. Awareness has grown that these are necessary to develop high quality agent systems. In recent years a number of proposals have been given. Based on our experiences we argue that a complete evaluation of methodologies cannot be done without considering target platforms, because the differences between available implementations are too fundamental to be ignored. In order to conduct a suitable comparison we present a flexible evaluation framework that takes platform specific criteria into account. Part of this framework is a procedure to derive relevant criteria from the evaluated platforms and methodologies. In combination with a set of platform dependent and independent criteria our framework allows evaluation of the appropriateness of methodologies with respect to platforms. As a consequence, also the suitability of methodologies for an individual platform, or vice versa of several platforms for an individual methodology can be examined. To show the usefulness of our proposal, we evaluate the suitability of different methodologies for an example platform.

Keywords

Multi Agent System Multiagent System Requirement Engineer Target Platform Agent Architecture 
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.
    Amor, M., Fuentes, L., Vallecillo, A.: Bridging the gap Between Agent–Oriented Design and Implementation Using MDA. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 93–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernon, C., Cossentino, M., Gleizes, M.P.: 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
  3. 3.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A.: Jadex Tutorial - Release 0.9 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: Troops: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Technical Report DIT-02-0015, University of Trento (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, R.: Elephants Don’t play chess. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 6, 3–15 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busetta, P., Howden, N., Rönnquist, R., Hodgson, A.: Structuring BDI Agents in Functional Clusters. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1757, pp. 277–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caire, G., Leal, F., Chainho, P., Evans, R., Garijo, F., Gomez, J., Pavon, J., Kearney, P., Stark, J., Massonet, P.: Agent oriented analysis using message/uml. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, p. 119. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cernuzzi, L., Rossi, G.: On the evaluation of agent oriented modeling methods. In: Proc. of Agent Oriented Methodology Workshop, Seattle (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corkill, D.D.: Blackboard Systems. AI Expert 6(9), 40–47 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dam, K.H., Winikoff, M.: Comparing Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3030, pp. 78–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeLoach, S.A.: Analysis and design using MaSE and agentTool. In: Proc. of the 12th MAICS (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A Meta-Model for the Analysis and Design of Organizations in Multi- Agent Systems. In: Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), Paris, France (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA Abstract Architecture Specification, SC00001L (2002), http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00001/
  14. 14.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA ACL Message Structure Specification, SC00061G (2002), http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00061/
  15. 15.
    Georgeff, M., Lansky, A.: Reactive Reasoning and Planing: An Experiments With a Mobile Robot. In: Proc. of the 1987 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1987 (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson–Sellers, B., Gorton, I.: Agent-based Software Development Methodologies. In: White Paper, Summary of Workshop at the OOPSLA 2002 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hodgson, A., Rönnquist, R., Busetta, P.: Specification of Coordinated Agent Behavior (The SimpleTeam Approach). Technical Report 99-05, Agent Oriented Software Pty. Ltd (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iglesias, C.A., Garijo, M., González, J.C.: A Survey of Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: Rao, A.S., Singh, M.P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1555, pp. 317–330. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Object Technology Series. Addison Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jennings, N.R.: On Agent–Based Software Engineering. Artificial Intelligence 117(2), 277 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Agent-Oriented Software Engineering. In: Handbook of Agent Technology. AAAI/MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kitchenham, B.: DESMET: A method for evaluating Software Engineering methods and tools. Technical Report TR96-09 (1996), ISSN:1353-7776Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luck, M., McBurney, P., Preist, C.: Agent Technology: Enabling Next Generation Computing: A roadmap for agent–based computing. AgentLink report (2003), ISBN 0854 327886, http://www.agentlink.org/roadmap/index.html
  24. 24.
    Mao, X., Yu, E.: Oranisational and Social Conceps in Agent Oriented Software Engineering. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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, p. 188. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Padgham, L.: Design of Multi Agent Systems. Tutorial at Net.ObjectDays, Erfurt, Germany, October 7-10 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Prometheus: A Pragmatic Methodology for Engineering Intelligent Agents. In: Proc. of the workshop on Agent-oriented methodologies at OOPSLA 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paulussen, T.O., Zöller, A., Heinzl, A., Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: Dynamic Patient Scheduling in Hospitals. In: Agent Technology in Business Applications, ATeBA 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: Jadex: Implementing a BDI-Infrastructure for JADE Agents. EXP – in search of innovation 3(3), 76–85 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poutakidis, D., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Debugging multi-agent systems using design artifacts: The case of interaction protocols. In: Proc. of the First Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rao, A., Georgeff M.: BDI-agents: from theory to practice. In: Proc. of the First Intl. Conf. on Multiagent Systems (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rational Software White Paper. Rational Unified Process: Best Practices for Software Development Teams (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., Lorensen, W.: Object–Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shehory, O., Sturm, A.: Evaluation of modeling techniques for agent-based systems. In: Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steegmans, E., Weyns, D., Holvoet, T., Berbers, Y.: Designing Roles for Situated Agents. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 109–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sturm, A., Shehory, O.: A Framework for Evaluating Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3030, pp. 94–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sudeikat, J.: Betrachtung und Auswahl der Methoden zur Entwicklung von Agentensystemen. Diploma thesis, in German, HAW Hamburg (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tambe, M.: Agent Architectures for Flexible, Practical Teamwork. In: Proc. of the Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Menlo Park (1997)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tveit, A.: A survey of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering. In: NTNU Computer Science Graduate Student Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wood, B., Pethia, R., Gold, L.R., Firth, R.: A guide to the assessment of software development methods. Technical Report 88-TR-8 (1988)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wooldridge, M.J., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yu, E.: Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. In: Proc. of 3rd IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering (1997)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu, E., Cysneiros, L.M.: Agent-Oriented Methodologies - Towards A Challenge Exemplar. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Sudeikat
    • 1
  • Lars Braubach
    • 2
  • Alexander Pokahr
    • 2
  • Winfried Lamersdorf
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Distributed Systems and Information Systems, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations