Allocating Goals to Agent Roles During MAS Requirements Engineering

  • Ivan J. Jureta
  • Stéphane Faulkner
  • Pierre-Yves Schobbens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4405)


Allocation of goal responsibilities to agent roles in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) influence the degree to which these systems satisfy nonfunctional requirements. This paper proposes a systematic approach that starts from nonfunctional requirements identification and moves towards agent role definition guided by the degree of nonfunctional requirements satisfaction. The approach relies on goal-dependencies to allow potential MAS vulnerabilities to be studied. In contrast to related work where organizational patterns are imposed on MAS, roles are constructed first, allowing MAS organizational structures to emerge from role definitions.


Multiagent System Goal Achievement Requirement Engineer Allocation Approach Agent Role 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Afuah, A.: Dynamic boundaries of the firm: Are firms better off being vertically integrated in the face of a technological change? Academy of Management Journal 44(6), 1211–1228 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Naeem, T., et al.: A Quality-Driven Systematic Approach for Architecting Distributed Software Applications. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anton, A., Earp, J., Reese, A.: Analyzing Website Privacy Requirements Using a Privacy Goal Taxonomy. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Req. Eng. Conf. RE’02, pp. 23–31 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buzzel, R.D.: Is vertical integration profitable? Harvard Business Rev. (Jan.-Feb. 1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caire, G., et al.: Agent-Oriented analysis using message/uml. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Inf. Sys. 27(6), 365–389 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandler, A.: The Visible Hand - The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung, L., et al.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleland-Huang, J., et al.: Goal-Centric Traceability for Managing Non-Functional Requirements. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sc. Comp. Prog. 20, 3–50 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darimont, R., Van Lamsweerde, A.: Formal Refinement Patterns for Goal-Driven Requirements Elaboration. In: Proc. 4th ACM SIGSOFT Symp. Found. of Softw. Eng., FSE4, pp. 179–190 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Devanbu, P.T., Stubblebine, S.: Software Engineering for Security: a Roadmap. In: Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Softw. Eng (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donzelli, P.: A goal-driven and agent-based requirements engineering framework. Req. Eng. 9, 16–39 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faulkner, S., et al.: Delegation Mechanisms for Agent Architectural Design. In: Proc. 4th Joint conf. Auton. Ag. Multi-Ag. Syst. (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franch, X.: Systematic Formulation of Non-Functional Characteristics of Software. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Req. Eng., RE’98 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedman, A., Camp, L.J.: Peer-to-Peer Security. In: Bidgoli, H. (ed.) The Handbook of Information Security, J.Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fuxman, A., et al.: Specifying and Analyzing Early Requirements in Tropos. Req. Eng. 9(2), 132–150 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    IEEE Computer Society: IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology. IEEE Std. 1061-1992, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO: ISO/IEC Standards 9126 - Information Technology - Software Product Evaluation. ISO (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Issarny, V., Bidan, C., Saridakis, T.: Achieving middleware customization in a configuration-based development environment: experience with the Aster prototype. In: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Config. Distr. Syst. (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keller, A., Blumenthal, U., Kar, G.: Classification and Computation of Dependencies for Distributed Management. In: Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Comp. Comm., ISCC (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landes, D., Studer, R.: The Treatment of Non-Functional Requirements in MIKE. In: Botella, P., Schäfer, W. (eds.) ESEC 1995. LNCS, vol. 989, Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Langlois, R.N.: The vanishing hand: the changing dynamics of industrial capitalism. Ind. and Corp. Change 12(2), 351–385 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Agent-Based Tactics for Goal-Oriented Requirements Elaboration. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Letier, E.: Reasoning about Agents in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Louvain (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Reasoning about Partial Goal Satisfaction for Requirements and Design Engineering. In: Proc. SIGSOFT’04/FSE-12 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, L., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Analyzing Security Requirements as Relationships Among Strategic Actors. In: Proc. 2nd Symp. on Req. Eng. Info. Security, SREIS’02 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu, L., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Security and Privacy Requirements Analysis within a Social Setting. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Req. Eng. (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu, L., Yu, E.: Designing information systems in social context: a goal and scenario modeling approach. Info. Syst. 29 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mouratidis, H., et al.: A natural extension of Tropos methodology for modelling security. In: Proc. of the Agent Oriented Meth. Worksh., OOPSLA (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mouratidis, H., Giorgini, P., Manson, G.: Modelling Secure Multiagent Systems. In: Proc. Auton. Ag. Multi-Ag. Syst. (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mouratidis, H., Giorgini, P., Manson, G.: When security meets software engineering: a case of modelling secure information systems. Info. Syst. (To Appear) (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.: Representing and Using Nonfunctional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach. IEEE Trans. on Softw. Eng. 18(6), 483–497 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rolland, C., Souveyet, C., Ben Achour, C.: Guiding Goal Modelling Using Scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (Dec. 1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosa, N.S., Cunha, R.F., Justo, G.R.R.: ProcessNFL: A Language for Describing Non-Functional Properties. In: Proc. 35th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rubin, P.: Managing Business Transactions. Free Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sturgeon, T.J.: Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization. Ind. Corp. Change 11(3) (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Proc. 5th IEEE Int. Symp. Req. Eng. (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E.: Handling Obstacles in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 26(10), 978–1005 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Enginering: A Roundtrip from Research to Practice. In: Proc. 8th IEEE Int. Symp. on Req. Eng. (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Darimont, R., Letier, E.: Managing Conflicts in Goal-driven Requirements Engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(11), 908–926 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    DeLoach, S.A., Wood, M., Sparkman, C.: Multiagent system engineering. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 11(3), 231–258 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Williamson, O.: The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu, E.: Modeling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering. Ph.D. Th., Univ. of Toronto (1995)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. J. Auton. Ag. M.-Ag. Syst. 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing Multiagent Systems: The Gaia Methodology. ACM Trans. on Softw. Eng. and Meth. 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan J. Jureta
    • 1
  • Stéphane Faulkner
    • 1
  • Pierre-Yves Schobbens
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Management Research Unit (IMRU), University of Namur, 8 Rempart de la Vierge, B-5000 NamurBelgium
  2. 2.Institut d’Informatique, University of Namur, 8 Rempart de la Vierge, B-5000 NamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations