Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) Spec: DRAFT, Version 0.2, Agent Communication Language, 1999, http://www.fipa/org  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....is finished. The line between the outcome cell and the provision cell, such as the one from the outcome provision cell OK of Ask to the input provision cell IN of the NLT (Non Local Task) means that the value of the outcome of the action, Ask, is transported to the input of NLT by a FIPA message [9]. The task NLT is instantiated by the incoming FIPA message. The NLT can not begin its execution until the input value is filled by an incoming message. In this way, the relationships among the agents tasks can be represented naturally with hierarchical task structure. As figure 2 shows, ....

....is vital for coordinating the agents behaviors. It is almost impossible for the agents to coordinate well without interacting with each other in complicated environments. The agent communication language used for coordination task is FIPA, semantic based language and more and more popular today [9]. We show a simple example here with FIPA messages. The coordination mechanism is selected as Promotion hit, which is initiated by a Facilitater agent as request and responded by a Facilitatee agent as inform. request :sender (agent identifier :name Facilitator) action (agent identifier ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). FIPA 2000 Specification. http : llwww.fipa. orgirepository/fipa2OOO. html

....of being sent. The specification consists of a set of message types and the description of their pragmatics, that is the effects on the mental attitudes of the sender and receiver agents. Every communicative act is described with both a narrative form and a formal semantics based on modal logic [11]. In the FIPA ACL specification there is the description of some high level protocols like request, contract net, several kinds of auctions, etc. Our multi agent recommender system uses the request protocol shown in Fig. 2. With this protocol, an agent requests another agent to perform an action, ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). FIPA Agent Specification 1997.

.... protocols, agent encoding Security: agent authentication and state appraisal General: agent setup and lifecycle, system interfaces At the time of writing, we are aware of only one attempt to provide means of interoperability among systems of mobile agents, which is the MASIF proposal [9] FIPA [7] is also active in the standardization of agent mobility [6] issues, but this particular thread of FIPA s work focuses on a high level of abstraction, and, to the best of our knowledge, the document did not have much public scrutiny yet. It is therefore fair to say that these existing ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), November 2001. Internet Web page at URL http: //www. fipa. org.

....of being sent. The specication consists of a set of message types and the description of their pragmatics, that is the eoeects on the mental attitudes of the sender and receiver agents. Every communicative act is described with both a narrative form and a formal semantics based on modal logic [11]. In the FIPA ACL specication there is the description of some high level protocols like request, contract net, several kinds of auctions, etc. Our multi agent system uses the inform and the request protocol shown in Fig. 2. With the inform protocol an agent informs another agent about a ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). FIPA Agent Specication 1997.

....called a middleagent. This approach, first established by Y. Labrou and T. Finin [10] is easy to implement, and is used by most of the existing works on open MAS. Research in this area is mainly concern in designing brokering architectures [1, 8] brokering protocols and communication languages [10, 6] or formalisms to represent agent capabilities [7, 14,16, 20] However, the use of a middle agent to manage the system openness has some limits and is not suitable in some contexts. The goal of our work is to consider the openness from a general point of view in order to target the main problems ....

....the capabilities of other agents the following formula has to be added to the integration state: 8 j 2 Omega ; 8r 2 CD i i ; 8a 2 FD j j ; compl(a; r) oe a 2 FD i j The use of a middle agent has first been suggested by Y. Labrou and T. Finin [10] and has been specified by the FIPA [6]. The agent platform of the FIPA is open since it provides the middle agent services by the way of two agents: the agent management system (which provides a naming service) and the directory facilitor (which provides yellow pages services) The centralization of the agent representations and the ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Agent management specification. Technical Report XC00023G, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, Geneva, Switzerland, August 2000.

....The resource models also need to be enhanced by interfacing with off the shelf storage I O simulators. In order to enable simulation of schedulers with economic models such as tenders and auctions, we plan to incorporate the FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents) agents standards [21] based interaction protocol infrastructure. To enable creation of resources with varying quality of service metrics, we are currently working on developing an economics driven scheduler for computational clusters. This scheduler can become the foundation for enhancing resources with quality of ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), Interaction and Negotiation Protocols, http://www.fipa.org/

....2. Global graph transformation rule In order to specify the communication between actors participating in a use case, UML sequence diagrams are used. The interaction that is necessary to select an account offering minimal transaction cost would typically be realized by the contract net protocol [9, 19] which describes the negotiation between a manager and a set of potential contractors about the delegation of a task. In terms of our example, a simplified version of this protocol may be informally described as follows. The Personal Banking Agent solicits proposals from the Account Agent by ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). Agent communication language. In FIPA 97 Specification, Version 2.0, http://www.fipa.org. FIPA, 1997.

....agents to communicate with each other via predefined performatives. A performative specifies the format of any given message and dictates how an agent should respond to messages. Two popular communication languages are the Knowledge Query and Markup Language (KQML) Bradshaw, 1995) and the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents Agent Communication Language (FIPA, 1997). The choice of an ACL does not impact the automatic verification of conversations. After the conversations in an agent system have been verified, the system may be deployed. Before deploying the system, the desired ACL is chosen and messages between agents are formatted accordingly. For example, ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). Agent Communication Language. FIPA 97 Specification, Version 2.0. Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.

....Domain concepts that will be used in communication between agents are modelled at the analysis level, allowing a more complete model of inter agent communication at the design level. Styx also utilises the interaction protocols specified by the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) [13] in order to support inter agent communication. 2.1 Covering the Software Life Cycle It is customary in the software engineering literature to prescribe a number of phases that constitute the software development life cycle , an example is given in table 1. The software development life cycle ....

....that reinventing conversation protocols for each agent system is often unnecessary. Styx will incorporate the specification of conversation protocols at the design level, but will draw these from a well known pool the interaction protocols introduced in the forthcoming FIPA 2000 specifications [13]. These cover a wide range of possible interagent interactions, from simple Request and Query protocols, to more complex Dutch Auction and Iterated Contract Net protocols. Although the complete documentation for these is not yet available, nevertheless based on the strength of previous versions of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Foundation For Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) web site. Located at http://www.fipa.org/.

....of today s mobile agent platforms are implemented in Java, it is postulated in [15] to create a new OMG standard to define implementation specific (i.e. Java specific) convention that allows a mobile agent to migrate to any standard compilant platform. The OMG MASIF [16] and FIPA Mobility Support [9] standards and generic MAP architectures (e.g. Pegaz [21] and Grasshopper [10] Mole [17] Ajanta[2] are examples of attempts to provide a basic standard for agentspace infrastructure. These e#orts are trying to assure interoperability, limited to core or basic functionality concerning agent ....

The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), FIPA 98 specification: http://www.cselt.it/fipa/spec/fipa98/fipa98.htm

....area of artificial intelligence and agents based computing has explored economy based approach for migration of agents and resource allocation. FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents) a consortium of the software agents community, has proposed a specification for agents negotiation [24]. Various economic models for resource trading and establishing pricing strategies have been proposed [6] 19] 27] 29] 41] 42] and they include, A Commodity Market (Flat or Demand Supply driven pricing) Model . A Posted Price Model . A Bargaining Model . A Tendering Contract Net Model . ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), http://www.fipa.org/, 2000.

....graphs to coordination. However, some important enhancements are possible based on some more general ideas. 5.1. Richer Rhetorical Relationships For expository ease, we used Parunak s proposed agent communication language in the above. Alternative languages such as KQML [21] or the FIPA language [11] might also have been used. Although more popular, these languages are no more expressive than Parunak s language and there is nothing to be gained by switching to either of them. However, Parunak s language does not cover some other kinds of communications that may be reasoned with in this ....

Foundation for intelligent physical agents (FIPA) specification, 1998. http://www.fipa.org.

....area of artificial intelligence and agents based computing has explored economy based approach for migration of agents and resource allocation. FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents) a consortium of the software agents community, has proposed a specification for agents negotiation [24]. Various economic models for resource trading and establishing pricing strategies have been proposed [6] 19] 27] 29] 40] 41] and they include, A Commodity Market (Flat or Demand Supply driven pricing) Model . A Posted Price Model . A Bargaining Model . A Tendering Contract Net Model . ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), http://www.fipa.org/, 2000.

....they maychange the beliefs and commitments of both sides. Historically, the rst comprehensive catalog of ACL message types, called KQML, is the result of a national research project in the United States (see [KQM] A more systematic and industry oriented approach is taken by the international FIPA 97 ACL standards proposal (see [FIP] In [Moo99] it is shown that current standards for electronic data interchange (EDI) more speci cally: UN EDIFACT and SWIFT,have the message structure proposed by speech act theory for general communication acts. This provides evidence that the important ....

....of both sides. Historically, the rst comprehensive catalog of ACL message types, called KQML, is the result of a national research project in the United States (see [KQM] A more systematic and industry oriented approach is taken by the international FIPA 97 ACL standards proposal (see [FIP] In [Moo99] it is shown that current standards for electronic data interchange (EDI) more speci cally: UN EDIFACT and SWIFT,have the message structure proposed by speech act theory for general communication acts. This provides evidence that the important problem of system interoperation is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Foundation for intelligentphysical agents (FIPA). http://www.pa.org.

....graphs to coordination. However, some important enhancements are possible based on some more general ideas. 5.1. Richer Rhetorical Relationships For expository ease, we used Parunak s proposed agent communication language in the above. Alternative languages such as KQML [21] or the FIPA language [11] might also have been used. Although more popular, these languages are no more expressive than Parunak s language and there is nothing to be gained by switching to either of them. However, Parunak s language does not cover some other kinds of communications that may be reasoned with in this ....

Foundation for intelligent physical agents (FIPA) specification, 1998. http://www.fipa.org.

....between the processes is already given. The new paradigm postulates design and implementation of interaction (cooperation) mechanisms for autonomous software agents because the network infrastructure restricted only to CORBA or CoKe is not sufficient. So that there are several attempts (see FIPA [20] for example) to extend network infrastructure by introducing standard services and facilitators that can be used by software agents (see the Fig. 4. The concept of Dynamic Interaction Model (see [35] is closely related to the idea of dynamic interaction mechanisms shown in Fig. 4 Once we grasp ....

The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa/

....way of modeling all kinds of communication, without necessarily committing to them for actual applications. However, this does not mean blackboards cannot be practical in networks. High speed communications and generic languages to provide for component coordination (like KQML [17] and the FIPA [10] protocols) are changing assumptions about the lack of scalability and security of blackboards. With these developments, making blackboards practical should be possible by techniques such as structuring them in a hierarchical way and dynamically creating and destroying localized ones when ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa/

No context found.

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). Agent communication language. In FIPA 97 Specification, Version 2.0. FIPA, 1997.

....is similar to KQML. It defines a set of standard communicative acts, essentially messages, and their meaning. However, it does not address a formalism for representing the message content. Correct interpretation of message content is left to the agents. In addition, agents rely on an ontology [Fip98b] which defines their vocabulary and the indented meaning of the vocabulary. An ontology service enables the mapping from one agent s ontology to another, allowing the agents to communicate with each other. The problem of knowledge representation and exchange still is an active field of research ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), Geneva, Switzerland. Specification FIPA 98, Part 12: Ontology Service, October 1998.

....on each other s knowledge and goal stores. As the content of the messages was not part of the standard, the Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) a formal language was defined based on first order predicate calculus for interchanging knowledge among disparate computer programs. ffl FIPA ACL [Fip98a] developed by the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) is similar to KQML. It defines a set of standard communicative acts, essentially messages, and their meaning. However, it does not address a formalism for representing the message content. Correct interpretation of message ....

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), Geneva, Switzerland. FIPA 97 Specification, Version 2.0, Part 2: Agent Communication Language, October 1998.

No context found.

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) Spec: DRAFT, Version 0.2, Agent Communication Language, 1999, http://www.fipa/org

No context found.

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) Spec: DRAFT, Version 0.2, Agent Communication Language, 1999, http://www.fipa/org

No context found.

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), FIPA 97 Specification, Version 1, http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa/spec/fipa97/fipa97.htm, 1997.

No context found.

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), FIPA 97 Specification, Version 1, http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa/spec/ fipa97/fipa97.htm, 1997. 06-09-98.

No context found.

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA). Agent Communication Language. Technical report, FIPA, 1997.

First 50 documents

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