Towards Maturity of the PASSI Process

Introduction The PASSI2 design process is the evolution of PASSI (Process for Agent Society Specification and Implementation) [44], it covers all the phases from the requirements analysis to the deployment configuration, coding, and testing. PASSI2, so as PASSI and all its evolution, is based on a meta-model describing the elements that constitute the system to be designed (agents, tasks, communications, roles) and what are the relationships among them. The importance of this description is in the lack of an universally accepted meta-model of MASs (differently from object oriented systems) that makes unclear any agent design process that does not precisely define the structure of the system it aims to produce. PASSI2 has been designed keeping in mind the possibility of designing systems with the following peculiarities: (i) highly distributed, (ii) subject to a (relatively) low rate of requirements changes, (iii) openness (external systems and agents that are unknown at design time will interact with the system to be built at runtime). Robotics, workflow management, and information systems are the specific application areas where it has been applied. As regards the implementation architecture, since we consider remarkably important the adoption (and enhancement) of standards for the diffusion of the agent-base software engineering, we decided to use the FIPA architecture although; this however, does not mean that PASSI cannot be largely applied for the design of non FIPA agents (like BDI ones). Actors involved in the design process are supposed to be designers with: • some experience of object-oriented design (using processes like the Unified Process [RUP,UP]). Starting from this requisite we propose a process that relies on common concepts like a functionality-oriented requirement analysis (differently from methodologies like Tropos [26] that is goal-based). This allows a smooth change towards AO approaches for a great number of already skilled designers that could profitably reuse their past experience without the significant slowdown induced by a remarkable change in their mental attitudes. • a good knowledge of UML and the use of related CASE tools. All the diagrams used in PASSI2 are based on the Unified Modeling Language and their syntax has been modified only to satisfy the needs of agents representation in a few limited cases. Sometimes the significance of their elements is mapped to agent-related concepts using stereotypes. • some kind of confidence with agent-oriented solutions. PASSI2 supports different levels of details and therefore it is recommended that the designer has some …

[1]  Helen M. Edwards,et al.  Problem frames: analyzing and structuring software development problems , 2002, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[2]  Rodney A. Brooks,et al.  A Robust Layered Control Syste For A Mobile Robot , 2022 .

[3]  Stefan Poslad,et al.  The FIPA-OS agent platform: Open Source for Open Standards , 2006 .

[4]  Takahiro Kawamura,et al.  Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities , 2002, SEMWEB.

[5]  Philippe Massonet,et al.  Goal-directed elaboration of requirements for a meeting scheduler: problems and lessons learnt , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'95).

[6]  Franco Zambonelli,et al.  Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology , 2003, TSEM.

[7]  Danny B. Lange,et al.  Agent design patterns: elements of agent application design , 1998, AGENTS '98.

[8]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Process , 1999 .

[9]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-oriented software engineering - a use case driven approach , 1993, TOOLS.

[10]  Winfried Lamersdorf,et al.  Jadex: Implementing a BDI-Infrastructure for JADE Agents , 2003 .

[11]  Elizabeth A. Kendall,et al.  Patterns of intelligent and mobile agents , 1998, AGENTS '98.

[12]  Monique Calisti,et al.  AML: Agent Modeling Language Toward Industry-Grade Agent-Based Modeling , 2004, AOSE.

[13]  Antonio Chella,et al.  Applying UML Use Case Diagrams to Agents Representation , 2000 .

[14]  Annie I. Antón,et al.  Goal Decomposition and Scenario Analysis in Business Process Reengineering , 1994, CAiSE.

[15]  G. Lehrenfeld,et al.  Agent-based modeling for holonic manufacturing systems with fuzzy control , 1999, 18th International Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society - NAFIPS (Cat. No.99TH8397).

[16]  Colin Potts,et al.  ScenIC: a strategy for inquiry-driven requirements determination , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188).

[17]  P. D. O'Brien,et al.  FIPA — Towards a Standard for Software Agents , 1998 .

[18]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[19]  Eric Yu,et al.  Modelling Trust in the i* Strategic Actors Framework , 2000 .

[20]  Agostino Poggi,et al.  Exploiting UML in the Design of Multi-agent Systems , 2000, ESAW.

[21]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  A Methodology and Modelling Technique for Systems of BDI Agents , 1996, MAAMAW.

[22]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about rational agents , 2000, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.

[23]  Scott A. DeLoach,et al.  Multiagent Systems Engineering , 2001, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[24]  A. Chella,et al.  Designing agent-based systems with UML , 2022 .

[25]  Dan Brickley,et al.  Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification , 2002 .

[26]  Kotagiri Ramamohanarao,et al.  An architecture for mobile BDI agents , 1998, SAC '98.

[27]  Annie I. Antón,et al.  The use of goals to surface requirements for evolving systems , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[28]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[29]  Allen Newell,et al.  The Knowledge Level , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Bernhard Bauer,et al.  Extending UML for agents , 2000 .

[31]  J. Sadock Speech acts , 2007 .