Advertisement

Extending Agent UML Sequence Diagrams

  • Marc-Philippe Huget 
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2585)

Abstract

Agents in multiagent systems need to interact in order to exchange information, cooperate or coordinate. This interaction is frequently done through interaction protocols based on distributed system communication protocols. Communication protocols are not directly used due to many differences between agents and objects or processes such as autonomy and interaction [23] [28]. Designers use formal description techniques to represent their protocols. These formal description techniques are either those coming from distributed systems or those specifically tailored to agents. In the last category, Agent UML [24] is certainly one of the most known. This paper presents Agent UML sequence diagrams and addresses several new stereotypes.

Keywords

Supply Chain Management Multiagent System Reserved Price Sequence Diagram Trigger Action 
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. 2.
    M. Barbuceanu and M. S. Fox. COOL: A language for describing coordination in multiagent system. In First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 17–24, San Francisco, USA, June 1995. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    B. Bauer. UML class diagrams revisited in the context of agent-based systems. In M. Wooldridge, P. Ciancarini, and G. Weiss, editors, Proceedings of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE 01), number 2222 in LNCS, pages 1–8, Montreal, Canada, May 2001. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    B. Bauer, J. Müller, and J. Odell. Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent interaction. In P. Ciancarini and M. J. Wooldridge, editors, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE-00), 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    B. Bauer, J. P. Müller, and J. Odell. An extension of UML by protocols for multiagent interaction. In International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS’00), pages 207–214, Boston, Massachussetts, july, 10–12 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    R. S. Cost, Y. Chen, T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and Y. Peng. Modeling agent conversation with colored Petri nets. In J. Bradshaw, editor, Autonomous Agents’99, Special Workshop on Conversation Policies, May 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    R. Davis and R. G. Smith. Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problemsolving. Artificial Intelligence, 20:63–109, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    F. Dignum. FLBC: From messages to protocols. In F. Dignum and C. Sierra, editors, European Perspective on Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce. Springer Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    M. d'Inverno and M. Luck. Formalising the contract net as a goal-directed system. In W. V. de Velde and J. Perram, editors, Agents Breaking Away, MAAMAW 96, number 1038 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 72–85. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    FIPA. Fipa interaction protocol library specification. Technical Report XC00025, FIPA, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    FIPA. Specification. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, http://www.fipa.org/repository/fipa2000.html, 2000.
  12. 13.
    M. Fisher and M. Wooldridge. Specifying and executing protocols for cooperative action. In International Working Conference on Cooperating Knowledge-Based Systems (CKBS-94), Keele, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    A. Haddadi. Communication and Cooperation in Agent Systems: A Pragmatic Theory, volume 1056 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1996.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    M.-P. Huget. Agent UML class diagrams revisited. In B. Bauer, K. Fischer, J. Muller, and B. Rumpe, editors, Proceedings of Agent Technology and Software Engineering (AgeS), Erfurt, Germany, October 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    M.-P. Huget. An application of agent UML to supply chain management. Technical Report ULCS-02-015, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    M.-P. Huget. A language for exchanging Agent UML protocol diagrams. Technical Report ULCS-02-009, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    M.-P. Huget. Model checking Agent UML protocol diagrams. Technical Report ULCS-02-012, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    C. Iglesias, M. Garrijo, J. Gonzales, and J. Velasco. Design of multi-agent system using mas-commonkads. In Springer-Verlag, editor, Proceedings of ATAL 98, Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, volume LNAI 1555, pages 163–176, Paris, France, July 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    J.-L. Koning. Algorithms for translating interaction protocols into a formal description. In K. Ito, editor, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Conference (SMC-99), Tokyo, Japan, October 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    K. Kuwabara, T. Ishida, and N. Osato. AgenTalk: Describing multiagent coordination protocols with inheritance. In Seventh IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 460–465, Herndon, Virginia, November 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    S. A. Moore. On conversation policies and the need for exceptions. In Autonomous Agents’99 Special Workshop on Conversation Policies, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    J. Odell. Objects and agents compared. Journal of Object Computing, 1(1), May 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    J. Odell, H. V. D. Parunak, and B. Bauer. Extending UML for agents. In G. Wagner, Y. Lesperance, and E. Yu, editors, Proceedings of the Agent-Oriented Information Systems Workshop at the 17th National conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Texas, july, 30 2000. ICue Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    J. Odell, H. V. D. Parunak, and B. Bauer. Representing agent interaction protocols in UML. In P. Ciancarini and M. Wooldridge, editors, Proceedings of First International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, june, 10 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    OMG. UML 1.4. Technical report, OMG, 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    S. S. Sian. Adaptation based on cooperative learning in multi-agent systems. In Y. Demazeau and J.-P. Müller, editors, Decentralized AI, volume II, pages 257–272, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    M. Wooldridge. An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley and Sons, April 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc-Philippe Huget 
    • 1
  1. 1.Agent ART GroupUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations