Advertisement

Objective vs. Subjective Coordination in Agent-Based Systems: A Case Study

  • Alessandro Ricci
  • Andrea Omicini
  • Enrico Denti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2315)

Abstract

This paper aims at showing the benefits of objective coordination in the design and development of agent-based distributed applications. We compare the subjective and objective coordination approaches in the engineering of a simple case study — a distributed MP3enco ding application — pointing out the benefits of the objective ones. In particular, we discuss the design and development of the sample application using three different solutions according to such approaches: a subjective solution, based on conversation and middle-agents, as often found in Distributed Artificial Intelligence and in Multi-Agent Systems; JavaSpaces, as a notable example of loosely-objective approach, not expressive enough to gain all the advantages of objective coordination; and TuCSoN as a fully-objective approach, providing a hybrid coordination model able to exploit the full potential of objective coordination.

Keywords

Multiagent System Coordination Activity Coordination Policy Tail Index Subjective Approach 
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.
    S. R. Cost, Y. Labrou, and T. Finin. Coordinating agents using agent communication languages conversations. In Omicini et al. [10], chapter 7, pages 183–196.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Decker, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson. Middle-agents for the internet. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. H. Durfee. Scaling up agent coordination strategies. IEEE Computer, 34(7), July 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Hupfer. Make room for JavaSpaces, part 6. In Java World, Jiniology. Springer-Verlag, Oct. 2000. Electronic Magazine, http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-2000/jw-1002-jiniology.html.
  5. 6.
    M. Klusch and K. Sycara. Brokering and matchmaking for coordination of agent societies: A survey. In Omicini et al. [10], chapter 8, pages 197–224.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    A. Omicini. SODA: Societies and infrastructures in the analysis and design of agentbased systems. In P. Ciancarini and M. J. Wooldridge, editors, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, volume 1957 of LNCS, pages 185–193. Springer-Verlag, 2001. 1st International Workshop (AOSE 2000), Limerick (Ireland), 10 June 2000, Revised Papers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    A. Omicini and E. Denti. From tuple spaces to tuple centres. Science of Computer Programming, 41(3):277–294, Nov. 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    A. Omicini and F. Zambonelli. Coordination for Internet application development. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3):251–269, September 1999. Special Issue: Coordination Mechanisms for Web Agents.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    A. Omicini, F. Zambonelli, M. Klusch, and R. Tolksdorf, editors. Coordination of Internet Agents: Models, Technologies, and Applications. Springer-Verlag, Mar. 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    M. Schumacher. Objective Coordination in Multi-Agent System Engineering — Design and Implementation, volume 2039 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, Apr. 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Ricci
    • 1
  • Andrea Omicini
    • 2
  • Enrico Denti
    • 3
  1. 1.DEISUniversità degli Studi di BolognaCesenaItaly
  2. 2.DEISUniversit`a degli Studi di BolognaCesenaItaly
  3. 3.DEISUniversità degli Studi di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations