| Robinson, David J. A Component Based Approach to Agent Specification. AFIT/GCS/ENG/00M-22. School of Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology (AU), Wright-Patterson AFB OH, March 2000. |
....verification of agent system specifications. For the initial 1999 2000 research cycle, four areas vital to agentTool operation were addressed. These are: 1) Development of a Multi Agent System (MAS) design methodology (Wood 2000) 2) Specification of an agent architecture description language (Robinson 2000) 3) Creation of a storage retrieval structure and mechanisms (e.g. knowledge base system) to contain and manipulate reusable agent domain knowledge (this work) 4) Formal verification of agent systems (Lacey 2000) This effort focuses on the third of these areas. 1.3 Problem The agentTool ....
....facility. Reasoning Able to consider alternatives and make weighted decisions. 4.2.1.2. 2 Architecture Classification Taxonomy Prior agent architecture classification attempts influenced the design of this effort s domain taxonomies, including the property taxonomy just discussed (Arriola 1994; Robinson 2000). Whereas the Michigan study classified architecture by platform or research team and 55 produced a lengthy list, Robinson lists just five architectures (reactive, planning, knowledgeBase, Belief Desire Intention (BDI) and user defined) Both of these approaches are used in this effort by 1) ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Robinson, D. J. (2000). "A Component Based Approach to Agent Specification," , Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton.
....MODEL [5] 113 FIGURE 88. AGENT CLASS DIAGRAM [23] 114 FIGURE 89. MASE COMPONENT DIAGRAM [15] . 115 FIGURE 90. DEPLOYMENT DIAGRAM [23] 116 FIGURE 91. CONCORDIA ARCHITECTURE [22] ....
....consist of roles that agents will play and the concurrent tasks that define the behavior of the roles and the coordination between those roles. These analysis phase models map to the following design phase models [18] as shown in Figure 2. Components existed in the former MaSE design architecture [15] but there was no guidance on how to use them to build agents or coordinate conversations between those agents. A component within an agent class, in the new design architecture, is created in an agent s internal architecture from each task that belongs to a role that the agent is playing. Since ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Robinson, D.J., A Component Based Approach to Agent Specification. MS thesis, AFIT/GCS/ENG/00M-22. School of Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 2000. 135
....states and transitions as necessary to convey the required messages and provide robust operation. Automatic verification of conversation correctness is addressed by Lacey in [13] 2.6 Assembling Agent Classes In this phase of MaSE, the internals of agent classes are created. Work by Robinson [18] describes the details of assembling agents from a component based architecture. He defines five different architectural style templates: Belief Desire Intention (BDI) 217 reactive, planning, knowledge based, and a user defined architecture. Each architecture template has a specific set of ....
Robinson, D.J.: A Component Based Approach to Agent Specification. MS thesis, AFIT/ENG/00M-22. School of Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology (AU), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio, USA (2000). 221
No context found.
Robinson, David J. A Component Based Approach to Agent Specification. AFIT/GCS/ENG/00M-22. School of Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology (AU), Wright-Patterson AFB OH, March 2000.
No context found.
D. Robinson. A Component Based Approach to Agent Specification. MS thesis, AFIT/ENG/00M-22. School of Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology (AU), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio, USA, March 2000.
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