Dependable Multi-agent Systems: Layered Reference Architecture and Representative Mechanisms

  • Peter C. Lockemann
  • Jens Nimis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4324)


Layered architectures are a proven principle for the design of software systems and components. The paper introduces a layered reference architecture for multi-agent systems which assigns each agent property to select layers. It demonstrates how the same reference architecture provides a framework for a dependability model that associates the sources of failures and the ensuing error handling with a specific layer, thus integrating dependability directly into the design of agents. The architectural approach is illustrated by several dependability mechanisms that assume transactional conversations.


Multiagent System Error Processing Software Agent Agent Interaction Layered Architecture 
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.
    Nimis, J., Lockemann, P.C.: Robust multi-agent systems: The transactional conversation approach. In: Barley, M., Massacci, F., Mouratidis, H., Scerri, P. (eds.) 1st International Workshop on Safety and Security in Multiagent Systems (SaSeMAS 2004), New York City, NY, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lockemann, P.C., Nimis, J.: Agent dependability as an architectural issue. In: Barley, M., Mouratidis, H., Spears, D., Unruh, A. (eds.) 3rd International Workshop on Safety and Security in Multiagent Systems (SaSeMAS 2006), Hakodate, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lockemann, P.C., Nimis, J.: Agent dependability as an architectural issue. In: Weiss, G., Stone, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), pp. 1101–1103. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Starke, G.: Effective Software Architectures, Hanser, Munich, Germany (2005) (in German)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wooldridge, M.J.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luck, M., Ashri, R., d’Inverno, M.: Agent-Based Software Development. Artech House, Inc., Norwood (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kendall, E.A., Pathak, C.V., Krishna, P.V.M., Suresh, C.B.: The layered agent pattern language. In: Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, PLoP 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jennings, N.R.: Specification and implementation of a belief-desire-joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2(3), 289–318 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stallings, W.: Data and computer communications, 7th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bratman, M.E., Israel, D.J., Pollack, M.E.: Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4(4), 349–355 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Lamersdorf, W.: Jadex: A BDI agent system combining middleware and reasoning. In: Unland, R., Calisti, M., Klusch, M. (eds.) Software Agent-Based Applications, Platforms and Development Kits. Birkhaeuser, Basel, Suisse, pp. 143–168 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Müller, J.P.: The Design of Intelligent Agents: a Layered Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lockemann, P.C., Nimis, J., Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Lamersdorf, W.: Architectural design. In: Kirn, S., Herzog, O., Lockemann, P.C., Spaniol, O. (eds.) Multiagent Engineering Theory and Applications in Enterprises. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 405–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laprie, J.C.: Dependable computing and fault tolerance: concepts and terminology. In: 15th IEEE Symposium on Fault Tolerant Computing Systems (FTCS-15), pp. 2–11 (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pleisch, S., Schiper, A.: Approaches to fault-tolerant and transactional mobile agent execution—an algorithmic view. ACM Comput. Surv. 36(3), 219–262 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson, T., Lee, P.A.: Fault Tolerance: Principles and Practice. Prentice/Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halsall, F.: Data communications, computer networks and open systems. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bellifemine, F., Bergenti, F., Caire, G., Poggi, A.: Jade – a java agent development framework. In: Bordini, R., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) Mutli-Agent Programming, pp. 125–148. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rimassa, G., Calisti, M., Kernland, M.E.: Living systems technology suite. Technical report, Whitestein Technologies AG, Zurich, Suiss (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mena, E., Illarramendi, A., Goni, A.: Automatic ontology construction for a multiagent-based software gathering service. In: Klusch, M., Kerschberg, L. (eds.) CIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1860, pp. 232–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paurobally, S., Cunningham, J., Jennings, N.R.: Developing agent interaction protocols using graphical and logical methodologies. In: Dastani, M.M., Dix, J., El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3067, pp. 149–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nodine, M., Unruh, A.: Constructing robust conversation policies in dynamic agent communities. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 205–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galan, A., Baker, A.: Multi-agent communications in jafmas. In: Workshop on Specifying and Implementing Conversation Policies, Seattle, Washington, pp. 67–70 (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hannebauer, M.: Modeling and verifying agent interaction protocols with algebraic petri nets. In: 6th International Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2002), Pasadena, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weikum, G., Vossen, G.: Transactional information systems: theory, algorithms and the practice of concurrency control and recovery. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Open Group: Distributed Transaction Processing: Reference Model, Version 3. The Open Group (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vogt, R.: Embedding a transaction-based robustness-service into a fipa-compliant multi-agent framework (in german). Diploma thesis, IPD, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany (October 2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Poslad, S., Charlton, P.: Standardizing agent interoperability: The FIPA approach. In: Luck, M., Mařík, V., Štěpánková, O., Trappl, R. (eds.) ACAI 2001 and EASSS 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2086, pp. 98–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poslad, S., Buckle, P., Hadingham, R.: FIPA-OS: the FIPA agent Platform available as Open Source. In: Bradshaw, J., Arnold, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM 2000), pp. 355–368. The Practical Application Company Ltd., Manchester (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    FIPA: Communicative act library specification. Specification, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sadek, M.D.: A study in the logic of intention. In: Nebel, B., Rich, C., Swartout, W. (eds.) KR 1992. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pp. 462–473. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sadek, M.D.: Attitudes Mentales et Interaction Rationnelle: Vers une Theorie Formelle de la Communication. PhD thesis, Universite de Rennes I, France (1991)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lockemann, P.C., Witte, R.: Agents and databases: Friends or foes? In: 9th International Database Applications and Engineering Symposium (IDEAS 2005), Montreal, Canada, pp. 137–147. IEEE Computer Soc, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harman, G.: Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision, pp. 183–203. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Witte, R.: Architecture of Fuzzy Information Systems. PhD thesis, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nagi, K.: Scalability of a transactional infrastructure for multi-agent systems. In: Wagner, T.A., Rana, O.F. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1887, pp. 266–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nagi, K.: Modeling and simulation of cooperative multi-agents in transactional database environments. In: Wagner, T., Rana, O.F. (eds.) 2nd International Workshop on Infrastructure for Scalable Multi-Agent Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Lockemann
    • 1
  • Jens Nimis
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultaet fuer InformatikUniversitaet Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations