A survey of agent-oriented methodologies

This article introduces the current agent-oriented methodologies. It discusses what approaches have been followed (mainly extending existing object oriented and knowledge engineering methodologies), the suitability of these approaches for agent modelling, and some conclusions drawn from the survey

Component Composition in Business and System Modelling

Bespoke development of large business systems can be couched in terms of the composition of components, which are, put simply, chunks of development work. Design, mapping a specification to an implementation, can also be expressed in terms of components: a refinement comprising an abstract component, a concrete component and a mapping between them. Similarly, system extension is the composition of an existing component, the legacy system, with a new component, the extension. This paper overviews work being done on a UK EPSRC funded research project formulating and formalizing techniques for describing, composing and performing integrity checks on components. Although the paper focuses on the specification and development of information systems, the techniques are equally applicable to the modeling and re-engineering of businesses, where no computer system may be involved

Analysis and design of multiagent systems using MAS-CommonKADS

This article proposes an agent-oriented methodology called MAS-CommonKADS and develops a case study. This methodology extends the knowledge engineering methodology CommonKADSwith techniquesfrom objectoriented and protocol engineering methodologies. The methodology consists of the development of seven models: Agent Model, that describes the characteristics of each agent; Task Model, that describes the tasks that the agents carry out; Expertise Model, that describes the knowledge needed by the agents to achieve their goals; Organisation Model, that describes the structural relationships between agents (software agents and/or human agents); Coordination Model, that describes the dynamic relationships between software agents; Communication Model, that describes the dynamic relationships between human agents and their respective personal assistant software agents; and Design Model, that refines the previous models and determines the most suitable agent architecture for each agent, and the requirements of the agent network

Graphical modelling language for spycifying concurrency based on CSP

Introduced in this (shortened) paper is a graphical modelling language for specifying concurrency in software designs. The language notations are derived from CSP and the resulting designs form CSP diagrams. The notations reflect both data-flow and control-flow aspects of concurrent software architectures. These designs can automatically be described by CSP algebraic expressions that can be used for formal analysis. The designer does not have to be aware of the underlying mathematics. The techniques and rules presented provide guidance to the development of concurrent software architectures. One can detect and reason about compositional conflicts (errors in design), potential deadlocks (errors at run-time), and priority inversion problems (performance burden) at a high level of abstraction. The CSP diagram collaborates with objectoriented modelling languages and structured methods

Three Dimensional Software Modelling

Traditionally, diagrams used in software systems modelling have been two dimensional (2D). This is probably because graphical notations, such as those used in object-oriented and structured systems modelling, draw upon the topological graph metaphor, which, at its basic form, receives little benefit from three dimensional (3D) rendering. This paper presents a series of 3D graphical notations demonstrating effective use of the third dimension in modelling. This is done by e.g., connecting several graphs together, or in using the Z co-ordinate to show special kinds of edges. Each notation combines several familiar 2D diagrams, which can be reproduced from 2D projections of the 3D model. 3D models are useful even in the absence of a powerful graphical workstation: even 2D stereoscopic projections can expose more information than a plain planar diagram

Evaluation of graphical control flow management approaches for Event-B modelling

Integrating graphical representations with formal methods can help bridge the gap between requirements and formal modelling. In this paper, we compare and evaluate two graphical approaches aiming at describing control flows and refinement in Event-B, and we use a fire dispatch system case study to perform this evaluation. The fire dispatch system case study provides a good example of a complex workflow through which we try to identify a process that facilitates defining the structural and the behavioural parts of the Event-B model. In our case study, we focus on building the dynamic part of the model to evaluate the two diagrammatic notations: UML Activity Diagrams and Atomicity Decomposition Diagrams. Based on our evaluation, we try to identify the advantages and limitations of both approaches. Finally, we try to compare how both graphical notations can affect the Event-B formal modelling of our case study

Models for Learning (Mod4L) Final Report: Representing Learning Designs

The Mod4L Models of Practice project is part of the JISC-funded Design for Learning Programme. It ran from 1 May – 31 December 2006. The philosophy underlying the project was that a general split is evident in the e-learning community between development of e-learning tools, services and standards, and research into how teachers can use these most effectively, and is impeding uptake of new tools and methods by teachers. To help overcome this barrier and bridge the gap, a need is felt for practitioner-focused resources which describe a range of learning designs and offer guidance on how these may be chosen and applied, how they can support effective practice in design for learning, and how they can support the development of effective tools, standards and systems with a learning design capability (see, for example, Griffiths and Blat 2005, JISC 2006). Practice models, it was suggested, were such a resource. The aim of the project was to: develop a range of practice models that could be used by practitioners in real life contexts and have a high impact on improving teaching and learning practice. We worked with two definitions of practice models. Practice models are: 1. generic approaches to the structuring and orchestration of learning activities. They express elements of pedagogic principle and allow practitioners to make informed choices (JISC 2006) However, however effective a learning design may be, it can only be shared with others through a representation. The issue of representation of learning designs is, then, central to the concept of sharing and reuse at the heart of JISC’s Design for Learning programme. Thus practice models should be both representations of effective practice, and effective representations of practice. Hence we arrived at the project working definition of practice models as: 2. Common, but decontextualised, learning designs that are represented in a way that is usable by practitioners (teachers, managers, etc).(Mod4L working definition, Falconer & Littlejohn 2006). A learning design is defined as the outcome of the process of designing, planning and orchestrating learning activities as part of a learning session or programme (JISC 2006). Practice models have many potential uses: they describe a range of learning designs that are found to be effective, and offer guidance on their use; they support sharing, reuse and adaptation of learning designs by teachers, and also the development of tools, standards and systems for planning, editing and running the designs. The project took a practitioner-centred approach, working in close collaboration with a focus group of 12 teachers recruited across a range of disciplines and from both FE and HE. Focus group members are listed in Appendix 1. Information was gathered from the focus group through two face to face workshops, and through their contributions to discussions on the project wiki. This was supplemented by an activity at a JISC pedagogy experts meeting in October 2006, and a part workshop at ALT-C in September 2006. The project interim report of August 2006 contained the outcomes of the first workshop (Falconer and Littlejohn, 2006). The current report refines the discussion of issues of representing learning designs for sharing and reuse evidenced in the interim report and highlights problems with the concept of practice models (section 2), characterises the requirements teachers have of effective representations (section 3), evaluates a number of types of representation against these requirements (section 4), explores the more technically focused role of sequencing representations and controlled vocabularies (sections 5 & 6), documents some generic learning designs (section 8.2) and suggests ways forward for bridging the gap between teachers and developers (section 2.6). All quotations are taken from the Mod4L wiki unless otherwise stated