Advertisement

Prometheus: A Methodology for Developing Intelligent Agents

  • Lin Padgham
  • Michael Winikoff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2585)

Abstract

As agents gain acceptance as a technology there is a growing need for practical methods for developing agent applications. This paper presents the Prometheus methodology, which has been developed over several years in collaboration with Agent Oriented Software. The methodology has been taught at industry workshops and university courses. It has proven effective in assisting developers to design, document, and build agent systems. Prometheus differs from existing methodologies in that it is a detailed and complete (start to end) methodology for developing intelligent agents which has evolved out of industrial and pedagogical experience. This paper describes the process and the products of the methodology illustrated by a running example.

Keywords

Multiagent System Agent System Intelligent Agent Interaction Diagram Design Artifact 
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.
    F. M. T. Brazier, B. M. Dunin-Keplicz, N. R. Jennings, and J. Treur. DESIRE: Modelling multiagent systems in a compositional formal framework. Int Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 6(1):67–94, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Burmeister. Models and methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Working Notes of the KI’96Workshop onAgentOriented Programming and Distributed Systems, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Bush, S. Cranefield, and M. Purvis. The Styx agent methodology. The Information Science Discussion Paper Series 2001/02, Department of Information Science, University of Otago, New Zealand., Jan. 2001. Available from http://divcom.otago.ac.nz/infosci.
  4. 4.
    G. Caire, F. Leal, P. Chainho, R. Evans, F. Garijo, J. Gomez, J. Pavon, P. Kearney, J. Stark, and P. Massonet. Agent oriented analysis using MESSAGE/UML. In M. Wooldridge, P. Ciancarini, and G. Weiss, editors, Second International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE-2001), pages 101–108, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Collinot, A. Drogoul, and P. Benhamou. Agent oriented design of a soccer robot team. In Proceedings of ICMAS’96, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. A. DeLoach. Analysis and design using MaSE and agentTool. In Proceedings of the 12th Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (MAICS 2001), 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. A. DeLoach, M. F. Wood, and C. H. Sparkman. Multiagent systems engineering. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 11(3):231–258, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Drogoul and J. Zucker. Methodological issues for designing multi-agent systems with machine learning techniques: Capitalizing experiences from the robocup challenge. Technical Report LIP6 1998/041, Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris 6, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Elammari and W. Lalonde. An agent-oriented methodology: High-level and intermediate models. In G. Wagner and E. Yu, editors, Proc. of the 1st Int.Workshop. on Agent-Oriented Information Systems., 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Giunchiglia, J. Mylopoulos, and A. Perini. The tropos software development methodology: Processes, models and diagrams. In Third InternationalWorkshop onAgent-Oriented Software Engineering, July 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Glaser. The CoMoMAS methodology and environment for multi-agent system development. In C. Zhang and D. Lukose, editors, Multi-Agent Systems Methodologies and Applications, pages 1–16. Springer LNAI 1286, Aug. 1996. Second Australian Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Iglesias, M. Garijo, and J. González. A survey of agent-oriented methodologies. In J. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, ATAL-98, pages 317–330. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. A. Iglesias, M. Garijo, J. C. González, and J. R. Velasco. Analysis and design of multiagent systems using MAS-commonKADS. In Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, pages 313–327, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. A. Kendall, M. T. Malkoun, and C. H. Jiang. A methodology for developing agent based systems. In C. Zhang and D. Lukose, editors, First Australian Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Kinny and M. Georgeff. Modelling and design of multi-agent systems. In Intelligent Agents III: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-96). LNAI 1193. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Kinny, M. Georgeff, and A. Rao. A methodology and modelling technique for systems of BDI agents. In R. van Hoe, editor, Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Knublauch and T. Rose. Tool-supported process analysis and design for the development of multi-agent systems. In Third International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, July 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Lind. A development method for multiagent systems. In Cybernetics and Systems: Proceedings of the 15th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Symposium ”From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation“, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Odell, H. Parunak, and B. Bauer. Extending UML for agents. In Proceedings of the Agent-Oriented Information Systems Workshop at the 17th National conference on Artificial Intelligence., 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Papasimeon and C. Heinze. Extending the UML for designing JACK agents. In Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 01), Aug. 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Poutakidis, L. Padgham, and M. Winikoff. Debugging multi-agent systems using design artifacts: The case of interaction protocols. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS’02), 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O. Shehory and A. Sturm. Evaluation of modeling techniques for agent-based systems. In J. P. Müller, E. Andre, S. Sen, and C. Frasson, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 624–631. ACM Press, May 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Z. Varga, N. R. Jennings, and D. Cockburn. Integrating intelligent systems into a cooperating community for electricity distribution management. Int Journal of Expert Systems with Applications, 7(4):563–579, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Wagner. The agent-object-relationship metamodel: Towards a unified view of state and behavior. To appear in Information Systems, 2002. http://AOR.rezearch.info.
  26. 26.
    M. Winikoff, L. Padgham, and J. Harland. Simplifying the development of intelligent agents. In M. Stumptner, D. Corbett, and M. Brooks, editors, AI2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 14th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 555–568. Springer, LNAI 2256, Dec. 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Wooldridge, N. Jennings, and D. Kinny. The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(3), 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lin Padgham
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations