Defining syntax and providing tool support for Agent UML using a textual notation

International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 123-144

  Winikoff, Michael ^a  

^a RMIT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Agent UML; agent oriented software engineering; AUML; design notations; interaction design

Indexed keywords

EID: 43949084495     PISSN: 17461375     EISSN: 17461383     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJAOSE.2007.014406     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M-P. and Zambonelli, F. (Eds.) (2004) Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
2. Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J. and Perini, A. (2004) ‘Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology’, Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Vol. 8, pp.203–236.
3. Casella, G. and Mascardi, V. (2006) ‘From AUML to WS-BPEL’, Technical Report DISI-TR-06-01, Universita di Genova, Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell’Informazione (DISI).
4. Cheong, C. and Winikoff, M. (2005) ‘Hermes: designing goal-oriented agent interactions’, Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE-2005).
5. DeLoach, S.A., Wood, M.F. and Sparkman, C.H. (2001) ‘Multiagent systems engineering’, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.231–258.
6. Doi, T., Yoshioka, N., Tahara, Y. and Honiden, S. (2004) ‘Bridging the gap between AUML and implementation using IOM/T’, Second International Workshop on Programming Multi-Agent Systems: Languages and Tools (ProMAS).
7. Ehrler, L. and Cranefield, S. (2004) ‘Executing agent UML diagrams’, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp.906–913.
8. Henderson-Sellers, B. and Giorgini, P. (Eds.) (2005) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, Idea Group.
9. Huget, M-P. (2002) ‘A language for exchanging agent UML protocol diagrams’, Technical Report ULCS-02-009, The University of Liverpool, Computer Science Department.
10. Huget, M-P. and Odell, J. (2004) ‘Representing agent interaction protocols with agent UML’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE).
11. Hunt, A. and Thomas, D. (2000) The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master, Addison-Wesley.
12. Jennings, N., Kinny, D., Wooldridge, M. and Zambonelli, F. (2004) The Gaia Methodology, in Bergenti et al. (2004), Chap. 4.
13. Juan, T., Pearce, A. and Sterling, L. (2002) ‘ROADMAP: extending the Gaia methodology for complex open systems’, Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), ACM Press, pp.3–10.
14. Khallouf, J. and Winikoff, M. (2005) ‘Towards goal-oriented design of agent systems’, First International Workshop on Integration of Software Engineering and Agent Technology (ISEAT 2005).
15. OMG (2003) UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, Object Management Group, document ptc/03-08-02, www.omg.org.
16. Padgham, L. and Winikoff, M. (2004) Developing Intelligent Agent Systems: A Practical Guide, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-470-86120-7.
17. Padgham, L., Thangarajah, J. and Winikoff, M. (2005a) ‘Tool support for agent development using the Prometheus methodology’, First International Workshop on Integration of Software Engineering and Agent Technology (ISEAT 2005).
18. Padgham, L., Winikoff, M. and Poutakidis, D. (2005b) ‘Adding debugging support to the Prometheus methodology’, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Agent-oriented Software Development, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.173–190.
19. Raymond, E.S. (2004) The Art of UNIX Programming, Addison-Wesley.
20. Rooney, C., Collier, R. and O’Hare, G.M.P. (2004) ‘VIPER: VIsual Protocol EditoR’, 6th International Conference on Coordination Languages and Models (COORDINATION 2004).
21. Spinellis, D. (2003) ‘On the declarative specification of models’, IEEE Software, doi:10.1109/MS.2003.1184181, Vol. 2, No. 20, pp.94–96.
22. Störrle, H. (2003) ‘Semantics of interactions in UML 2.0’, Intl. Ws. Visual Languages and Formal Methods, at HCC’03, Auckland, NZ.
23. Störrle, H. (2004) ‘Trace semantics of UML 2.0 interactions’, Technical Report TR 0403, University of Munich.
24. Winikoff, M. (2005) ‘Towards making agent UML practical: a textual notation and a tool’, First International Workshop on Integration of Software Engineering and Agent Technology (ISEAT 2005).
25. http://www.uml.org
26. http://www.auml.org
27. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, http://www.fipa.org.
28. http://www.umlet.com
29. http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/agents/pdt/
30. Actually the label of a lifeline can contain a type and/or an instance name, as well as other information.
31. Actually it is possible for none of the regions to be executed if all guards are false. This can be avoided by having an ‘else’ guard.
32. Neither of these constraints are captured by the grammar in Figure 7.
33. The tool is freely available from http://www.winikoff.net/auml.
34. At the time of writing the tool did not support the ‘stop’ command.
35. http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/agents/pdt/
36. XML Metadata Interchange, http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/xmi.htm.
37. “The current version [sic] IOM/T can not fully represent interactions which are equivalent to design in AUML & there are not the notations which represent CombinedFragment. Only CombinedFragments whose interaction operator [sic] are ‘Loop’ can be represented by ‘while’ structure” (Doi et al., 2004, Section 2.7).
38. http://ingenias.sourceforge.net (accessed 7 March 2006).
39. Plug-in for Agent UML Linking.