Model-Driven Integration of Organizational Models

  • Luciano R. Coutinho
  • Anarosa A. F. Brandão
  • Jaime S. Sichman
  • Olivier Boissier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5386)


Currently, the design and running of a Multi-Agent System (MAS) mobilize several models. Besides agents’ architectures, high level agent communication languages and domain ontologies, explicit organization specifications (written in some organizational model) are more and more used to structure and constrain the behavior of MASs. In the case of open MASs, one important requirement is interoperability w.r.t. these models. Focusing organizational model interoperability, in this paper, we propose an integration process for organizational models based on concepts (models, mappings, transformations, etc.) and techniques (Match, Merge, TransfGen, Compose, etc.) from Model-Driven Engineering (MDE). The process is concretely used to integrate five organizational models: AGR, \({\mathcal M}\) oise+, TÆMS, ISLANDER and OperA.


Multiagent System Organizational Model Modeling Construct Eclipse Modeling Framework Agent Communication Language 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., Michel, F.: From agents to organizations: an organizational view of multi-agent systems. In: Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P., Odell, J.J. (eds.) AOSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2935, pp. 214–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lesser, V., et al.: Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 9, 87–143 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: A model for the structural, functional, and deontic specification of organizations in multiagent systems. In: Bittencourt, G., Ramalho, G.L. (eds.) SBIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2507, pp. 118–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esteva, M., Padget, J., Sierra, C.: Formalizing a language for institutions and norms. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 348–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dignum, V.: A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, SIKS Dissertation Series No. 2004-1 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gutknecht, O., Ferber, J.: The MADKIT agent platform architecture. In: Wagner, T.A., Rana, O.F. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1887, pp. 48–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: S-MOISE+: A middleware for developing organised multi-agent systems. In: Boissier, O., et al. (eds.) OOOP 2005: International Workshop on Organizations in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 107–120 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Arcos, J.L.: AMELI: an agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: AAMAS, pp. 236–243. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coutinho, L., Sichman, J., Boissier, O.: Modelling dimensions for multi-agent system organizations. In: Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, ch. 2. IGI Global (to appear)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T., Peng, Y.: The interoperability problem: bringing together mobile agents and agent communication languages. In: HICSS 1999, Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 8 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erdur, R.C., Dikenelli, O., Seylan, I., Gürcan, Ö.: Semantically federating multi-agent organizations. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2004. LNCS, vol. 3451, pp. 74–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernstein, P.A., Melnik, S.: Model management 2.0: manipulating richer mappings. In: ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bernstein, P.A.: Applying model management to classical meta data problems. In: CIDR 2003, First Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, pp. 209–220 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Model-driven engineering. IEEE Computer, 25–31 (February 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bézivin, J.: On the unification power of models. Soft. and Sys. Modeling 4, 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szolovits, P., Doyle, J., Long, W.J., Kohane, P.S.G.: Guardian Angel: patient-centered health information systems. Technical Report 604, MIT, Lab. Computer Science (May 1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davidsson, P.: Categories of artificial societies. In: Omicini, A., Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) ESAW 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2203, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Melnik, S., Bernstein, P.A., Halevy, A.Y., Rahm, E.: Supporting executable mappings in model management. In: ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, pp. 167–178 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fabro, M.D.D., Valduriez, P.: Semi-automatic model integration using matching transformations and weaving models. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 963–970 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pottinger, R., Bernstein, P.A.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: VLDB 2003, Proc. of 29th Int. Conference on Very Large Data, pp. 826–873 (2003) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopes, D., Hammoudi, S., Abdelouahab, Z.: Schema matching in the context of model driven engineering: From theory to practice. In: Sobh, T., Elleithy, K. (eds.) Advances in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering, pp. 219–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fabro, M.D.D., Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Breton, E., Gueltas, G.: AMW: a generic model weaver. In: IDM 2005: 1ère Journée sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dignum, F., et al.: Open agent systems??? In: Luck, M., Padgham, L. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII. LNCS, vol. 4951, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bernon, C., Cossentino, M., Gleizes, M.P., Turci, P., Zambonelli, F.: 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
  26. 26.
    Kappel, G., et al.: Lifting metamodels to ontologies: a step to the semantic integration of modeling languages. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 528–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boronat, A., et al.: Formal model merging applied to class diagram integration. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 166, 5–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano R. Coutinho
    • 1
  • Anarosa A. F. Brandão
    • 1
  • Jaime S. Sichman
    • 1
  • Olivier Boissier
    • 2
  1. 1.LTI / EP / USP - Av. Prof. Luciano GualbertoSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.SMA / G2I / ENSM.SESaint-Etienne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations