M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In Intelligent Agents V,J.P.Muller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, eds, pp. 227--242. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1998.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....As agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous specifications of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (e.g. Concurrent MetateM [9, 33], DESIRE [5, 30] and Z [7] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they prescribe a particular means of performing the separation of concerns and limit the type of interrelationships that can be expressed between the resulting components; ii) ....

....a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. We could, of course, simulate the kind of control found in DESIRE by building a central controlling module, if this were required. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [9, 33]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model It is possible ....

M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In Intelligent Agents V,J.P.Muller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, eds, pp. 227--242. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1998.

....agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous specifications of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (including Concurrent MetateM [12, 35], DESIRE [3, 32] and Z [8] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they enforce a particular view of architecture upon the specification; ii) they offer no explicit structures for modelling the components of an architecture or the relationships ....

....model in DESIRE is based on a one to one connection between tasks, in a similar way to that in which we connect units inside a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [12, 35]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In J. P. Muller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V, pages 227--242. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1998.

....of the same class and whose state components are individual . In Figure 5.10 two instances of a diagnostic agent and one instance of a robot agent are de ned. 111 5.3. 6 Comparison In this section we compare our approach for specifying heterogeneous agent architectures with other proposals: [29], by Fisher; 36] by Hindriks et al. 8] by Treur et al. 32] by De Giacomo et al. The proposals are compared according to their capabilities to specify architectures complying with the model of the agent presented in Section 2.3.3 (i.e. in terms of state, program and engine) In [29] ....

....[29] by Fisher; 36] by Hindriks et al. 8] by Treur et al. 32] by De Giacomo et al. The proposals are compared according to their capabilities to specify architectures complying with the model of the agent presented in Section 2.3. 3 (i.e. in terms of state, program and engine) In [29], Fisher presents the speci cation of an abstract agent architecture using Concurrent MetateM, a speci cation language based on temporal logics. The architecture model allows the designer to incorporate into the design di erent kinds of behaviour, to be performed by groups of sub agents. Each ....

M. Fisher. Representing Abstract Agent Architectures. In M. P. Singh J. P. Muller and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V. Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages - 5th International Workshop, number 1555 in Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence, pages 227-241, Paris, France, July 1998. Springer-Verlag.

....As agent architectures become more widely used, demand for unambiguous specifications of architectures increases and there is a greater need to verify implementations of architectures. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (eg Concurrent MetateM [7, 26], DESIRE [3, 24] and Z [5] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they enforce a particular view of architecture upon the specification; ii) they offer no explicit structures for 1 modelling the components of an architecture or the ....

....model in DESIRE is based on a one to one connection between tasks, in a similar way to that in which we connect units inside a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [7, 26]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In J. P. Muller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V, pages 227-- 242. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1998.

....them. As agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous speci cations of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (eg Concurrent MetateM [9, 33], DESIRE [5, 30] and Z [7] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they prescribe a particular means of performing the separation of concerns and limit the type of inter relationships that can be expressed between the resulting components; ii) ....

....a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. We could, of course, simulate the kind of control found in DESIRE by building a central controlling module, if this were required. Concurrent MetateM de nes concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [9, 33]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which re when their antecedents are satis ed. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In J. P. Muller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V, pages 227-242. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1998.

....semantics of an exec instruction is to send a message to the environment agent containing the action to be performed. This is achieved by modifying the ether. 5 Comparison In this section we compare our approach to the specification of heterogeneous agent architectures with other proposals: [5], by Fisher; 8] by Hindriks et al. 3] by Treur et al. 6] by De Giacomo et al. and [16] by van Eijk et al. The proposals will be compared with respect to their capabilities to specify architectures that comply with the model of the agent presented in Section 2, i.e. in terms of state, ....

....Hindriks et al. 3] by Treur et al. 6] by De Giacomo et al. and [16] by van Eijk et al. The proposals will be compared with respect to their capabilities to specify architectures that comply with the model of the agent presented in Section 2, i.e. in terms of state, program and engine. In [5], Fisher presents the specification of an abstract agent architecture using Concurrent MetateM, a specification language based on temporal logics. The architecture model allows us to encompass different kinds of behaviour, performed by groups of sub agents. Each behaviour is described as a set ....

M. Fisher. Representing Abstract Agent Architectures. In M. P. Singh J. P. Mueller and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V, number 1555 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1999.

....them. As agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous specifications of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (eg Concurrent MetateM [9, 27], DESIRE [3, 25] and Z [6] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they enforce a particular view of architecture upon the specification; ii) they offer no explicit structures for modelling the components of an architecture or the relationships ....

....model in DESIRE is based on a one to one connection between tasks, in a similar way to that in which we connect units inside a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [9, 27]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In J. P. Muller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V, pages 227--242. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1998.

....that most of the concurrency aspects of the existing multiagent languages lack a clear modular structure, which is mainly due to the intricacies of the interactions between the various agent features. The signi cance of a modular design, which is also discussed in the contributions of Fisher [11] and Engelfriet et al. 9] in this volume, is re ected by the fact that most of the existing multi agent languages are not yet fully understood from a semantical point of view. In order to obtain a well structured and semantically well understood multiagent programming language, we advocate an ....

M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In J. P. Muller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V | Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL98) , Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999. In this volume.

No context found.

M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. In Intelligent Agents V, Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC