skip to main content
article

High variability design for software agents: Extending Tropos

Published:01 November 2007Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many classes of distributed applications, including e-business, e-government, and ambient intelligence, consist of networking infrastructures, where the nodes (peers)—be they software components, human actors or organizational units—cooperate with each other to achieve shared goals. The multi-agent system metaphor fits very well such settings because it is founded on intentional and social concepts and mechanisms. Not surprisingly, many agent-oriented software development methods have been proposed, including GAIA, PASSI, and Tropos. This paper extends the Tropos methodology, enhancing its ability to support high variability design through the explicit modelling of alternatives, it adopts an extended notion of agent capability and proposes a refined Tropos design process. The paper also presents an implemented software development environment for Tropos, founded on the Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) framework and standards. The extended Tropos development process is illustrated through a case study involving an e-commerce application.

References

  1. Bauer, B., Muller, J. P., and Odell, J. 2001. Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent software systems. Int. J. Softw. Engin. Knowl. Engin. 11, 3, 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellifemine, F., Poggi, A., and Rimassa, G. 1998. JADE: A FIPA compliant agent framework. In Practical Applications of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agents Technology (PAAM'98). 97--108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M.-P., and Zambonelli, F., Eds. 2004. Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems: The Agent-Oriented Software Engineering Handbook. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, vol. 11. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernon, C., Gleizes, M. P., Peyruqueou, S., and Glize, P. 2002. ADELFE: A methodology for adaptive multi-agent systems engineering. In Engineering Societies in the Agents World III, 3rd International Workshop (ESAW'02). P. Petta, R. Tolksdorf, and F. Zambonelli, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2577. Springer, 156--169. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., and Perini, A. 2004. Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8, 3, 203-- 236. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryl, V., Giorgini, P., and Mylopoulos, J. 2006. Designing cooperative IS: Exploring and evaluating alternatives. In Proceedings of On The Move (OTM) Conferences (1), Montpellier, France. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4275. Springer, 533--550. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryson, J., Martin, D., McIlraith, S., and Stein, L. 2002. Toward behavioral intelligence in the semantic web. IEEE Comput. 35, 11, 48--54. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro, J., Kolp, M., and Mylopoulos, J. 2002. Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: The Tropos Project. Inform. Syst. 27, 6, 365--389. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cossentino, M. 2005. From requirements to code with the PASSI methodology. In Agent-Oriented Methodologies, B. Henderson-Sellers and P. Giorgini, Eds. Idea Group Inc., Hershey, PA, Chapter 4, 79--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dam, K. and Winikoff, M. 2003. Comparing agent-oriented methodologies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Bi-Conference Workshop on AgentOriented Information Systems (AOIS'03). P. Giorgini, B. Henderson-Sellers, and M. Winikoff, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3030. Springer, 78--93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. DeLoach, S., Wood, M., and Sparkman, C. 2001. Multiagent systems engineering. Int. J. Soft. Engin. Knowl. Engin. 11, 3, 231--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Duddy, K., Lawley, M., and Iyengar, S. 2004. MOF Query/Views/Transformations, Second Revised Submission.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuxman, A., Liu, L., Mylopoulos, J., Roveri, M., and Traverso, P. 2004. Specifying and analyzing early requirements in Tropos. Requir. Engin. 9, 2, 132--150. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner, T., Griffin, C., Koehler, J., and Hauser, R. 2003. A Review of OMG MOF 2.0 Query /Views /Transformations Submissions and Recommendations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Giorgini, P., Mylopoulous, J., and Sebastiani, R. 2005. Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the tropos methodology. Engin. Appli. AI 18, 2, 159--171. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson-Sellers, B. and Giorgini, P., Eds. 2005. Agent-Oriented Methodologies. Idea Group Inc., Hershey, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jayatilleke, G., Padgham, L., and Winikoff, M. 2005. A model driven component-based development framework for agents. Comput. Syst. Sci. Engin. 20, 4, 273--282.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Juan, T., Pearce, A., and Sterling, L. 2002. ROADMAP: Extending the gaia methodology for complex open systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'02). ACM, 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Judson, S. R., France, R. B., and Carver, D. L. 2004. Specifying Model Transformations at the Metamodel Level. http://www.omg.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolp, M., Giorgini, P., and Mylopoulos, J. 2001. A goal-based organizational perspective on multi-agents architectures. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL'01). J.-J. C. Meyer and M. Tambe, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2333. Springer, 128--140. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lapouchnian, A., Liaskos, S., Mylopoulos, J., and Yu, Y. 2005. Towards requirements-driven autonomic systems design. In Workshop on Design an Evolution of Autonomic Application Software (DEAS'05). 45--51. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Liaskos, S., McIlraith, S., and Mylopoulos, J. 2006. Representing and reasoning with preference requirements using goals. Tech. rep. CSRG-542, Computer Science Department, University of Toronto.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mellor, S. J., Scott, K., Uhl, A., and Weise, D. 2004. MDA Distilled. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Padgham, L. and Lambrix, P. 2005. Formalizations of Capabilities for BDI-Agents. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 10, 3, 249--271. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Padgham, L. and Winikoff, M. 2004. Developing Intelligent Agent Systems: A Practical Guide. John Wiley and Sons. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Penserini, L., Kolp, M., and Spalazzi, L. 2007. Social-oriented engineering of intelligent software. Web Intel. Agent Syst. Inter. J. 5, 1, 69--87. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Penserini, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., and Mylopoulos, J. 2006a. From capability specifications to code for multi-agent software. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'06). IEEE Computer Society, 253--256. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Penserini, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., and Mylopoulos, J. 2006b. From stakeholder intentions to software agent implementations. In Proceedings of the Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 18th International Conference (CAiSE'06). E. Dubois and K. Pohl, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4001. Springer, 465--479. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Perini, A. and Susi, A. 2005. Agent-oriented visual modeling and model validation for engineering distributed systems. Comput. Syst. Sci. Engin. 20, 4, 319--329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Perini, A. and Susi, A. 2006. Automating model transformations in agent-oriented modelling. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 6th International Workshop (AOSE'05). J. P. Müller and F. Zambonelli, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3950. Springer, 167--178. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., and Lamersdorf, W. 2005. Jadex: A BDI reasoning engine. In Multi-Agent Programming, R. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, and A. Seghrouchni, Eds. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, vol. 15. Springer, 149--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Sebastiani, R., Giorgini, P., and Mylopoulos, J. 2004. Simple and minimum-cost satisfiability for goal models. In Proceedings of the Advanced Information Systems Engineering 16th International Conference (CAiSE'04). A. Persson and J. Stirna, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3084. Springer, 20--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Shehory, O. and Sturm, A. 2001. Evaluation of modeling techniques for agent-based systems. In 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents. ACM, 624--631. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Susi, A., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., and Mylopoulos, J. 2005. The Tropos metamodel and its use. Informatica 29, 4, 401--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Yu, E. 1995. Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Toronto. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N. R., and Wooldridge, M. 2003. Developing multiagent systems: the GAIA methodology. ACM Trans. Soft. Engin. Method. 12, 3, 317--370. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. High variability design for software agents: Extending Tropos

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!