Advertisement

Coordinating Agents in OO

  • Frank S. de Boer
  • Cees Pierik
  • Rogier M. van Eijk
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2975)

Abstract

In this paper we introduce an object-oriented coordination language for multi-agents systems. The beliefs and reasoning capabilities of an agent are specified in terms of a corresponding abstract data type. Agents interact via an extension of the usual object-oriented message passing mechanism. This extension provides the autonomy that is required of agents but which objects in most object-oriented languages do not have. It consists of an explicit answer statement by means of which an agent can specify that it is willing to accept some specified messages. For our coordination language we also present a formal method for proving correctness. The method extends and generalizes existing assertional proof methods for object-oriented languages.

Keywords

Multiagent System Internal Activity Agent Communication Logical Variable Belief Base 
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.
    Rash, J.L., Rouff, C.A., Truszkowski, W., Gordon, D.F., Hinchey, M.G. (eds.): FAABS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1871. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A., Gordon-Spears, D.F. (eds.): FAABS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2699. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wooldridge, M., Ciancarini, P.: Agent-oriented software engineering: The state of the art. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 1–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyer, J.J.C.: Tools and education towards formal methods practice. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A., Gordon-Spears, D.F. (eds.) FAABS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2699, pp. 274–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Eijk, R., de Boer, F., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J.C.: Generalised objectoriented concepts for inter-agent communication. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 260–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoare, T.: Assertions. In: Broy, M., Pizka, M. (eds.) Models, Algebras and Logic of Engineering Software. NATO Science Series, vol. 191, pp. 291–316. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meaning to programs. In: Proc. Symposium on Applied Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, vol. 19, pp. 19–32 (1967)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyer, B.: Eiffel: The Language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM 12, 576–580 (1969)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Boer, F., Pierik, C.: Computer-aided specification and verification of annotated object-oriented programs. In: Jacobs, B., Rensink, A. (eds.) FMOODS V, pp. 163–177. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pierik, C., de Boer, F.S.: A syntax-directed Hoare logic for object-oriented programming concepts. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Owicki, S., Gries, D.: An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs i. Acta Informatica 6, 319–340 (1976)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Apt, K., Francez, N., de Roever, W.: A proof system for communicating sequential processes. ACM Transactions of Programming Languages and Systems 2, 359–385 (1980)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wooldridge, M.: Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3, 9–31 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guerin, F., Pitt, J.: Verification and compliance testing. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 98–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eijk, R.v., Boer, F.d., Hoek, W.v.d., Meyer, J.J.: A verification framework for agent communication. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 6, 185–219 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Roever, W.P., de Boer, F., Hannemann, U., Hooman, J., Lakhnech, Y., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Concurrency Verification. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer, J.J.C., van der Hoek, W.: Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hindriks, K., de Boer, F., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J.: Agent programming in 3APL. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2, 357–401 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank S. de Boer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Cees Pierik
    • 1
  • Rogier M. van Eijk
    • 1
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.LIACSLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations