Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process

[EN] Due to the increase in collaborative work and the decentralization of processes in many domains, there is an expanding demand for large-scale, flexible and adaptive software systems to support the interactions of people and institutions distributed in heterogeneous environments. Commonly, these software applications should follow specific regulations meaning the actors using them are bound by rights, duties and restrictions. Since this normative environment determines the final design of the software system, it should be considered as an important issue during the design of the system. Some agent-oriented software engineering methodologies deal with the development of normative systems (systems that have a normative environment) by integrating the analysis of the normative environment of a system in the development process. This paper analyses to what extent these methodologies support the analysis and formalisation of the normative environment and highlights some open issues of the topic.This work is partially supported by the PROMETEOII/2013/019, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, FP7-29493, TIN2011-27652-C03-00, CSD2007-00022 projects, and the CASES project within the 7th European Community Framework Program under the grant agreement No 294931.Garcia Marques, ME.; Miles, S.; Luck, M.; Giret Boggino, AS. (2014). Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9275-zS120Cossentino, M., Hilaire, V., Molesini, A., & Seidita, V. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook on agent-oriented design processes (Vol. VIII, 569 p. 508 illus.). Berlin: Springer.Akbari, O. (2010). A survey of agent-oriented software engineering paradigm: Towards its industrial acceptance. Journal of Computer Engineering Research, 1, 14–28.Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., Giret, A., Julian, V., & Rebollo, M. (2011). An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: The THOMAS approach. Knowledge and Information Systems, 29(2), 379–403.Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). GORMAS: An organizational-oriented methodological guideline for open MAS. In Proceedings of AOSE’09 (pp. 440–449).Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). Organizational-oriented methodological guidelines for designing virtual organizations. In Distributed computing, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, soft computing, and ambient assisted living. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5518, pp. 154–162).Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). Normative systems in computer science—Ten guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In G. Boella, P. Noriega, G. Pigozzi, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems, number 09121 in Dagstuhl seminar proceedings.Boella, G., Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 71–79.Bogdanovych, A., Esteva, M., Simoff, S., Sierra, C., & Berger, H. (2008). A methodology for developing multiagent systems as 3d electronic institutions. In M. Luck & L. Padgham (Eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII (Vol. 4951, pp. 103–117). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J., & Vazquez-Salceda, J. (2006). Coordination, organizations, institutions and norms in multi-agent systems. LNCS (LNAI) (Vol. 3913).Bordini, R. H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2006). Verifying multi-agent programs by model checking. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (Vol. 12, pp. 239–256). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Botti, V., Garrido, A., Giret, A., & Noriega, P. (2011). The role of MAS as a decision support tool in a water-rights market. In Post-proceedings workshops AAMAS2011 (Vol. 7068, pp. 35–49). Berlin: Springer.Breaux, T. (2009). Exercising due diligence in legal requirements acquisition: A tool-supported, frame-based approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE international requirements engineering conference (pp. 225–230).Breaux, T. D., & Baumer, D. L. (2011). Legally reasonable security requirements: A 10-year ftc retrospective. Computers and Security, 30(4), 178–193.Breaux, T. D., Vail, M. W., & Anton, A. I. (2006). Towards regulatory compliance: Extracting rights and obligations to align requirements with regulations. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE ’06 (pp. 46–55). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 8(3), 203–236.Cardoso, H. L., & Oliveira, E. (2008). A contract model for electronic institutions. In COIN’07: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III (pp. 27–40).Castor, A., Pinto, R. C., Silva, C. T. L. L., & Castro, J. (2004). Towards requirement traceability in tropos. In WER (pp. 189–200).Chopra, A., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2009). Modeling and reasoning about service-oriented applications via goals and commitments. ICST conference on digital business.Cliffe, O., Vos, M., & Padget, J. (2006). Specifying and analysing agent-based social institutions using answer set programming. In O. Boissier, J. Padget, V. Dignum, G. Lindemann, E. Matson, S. Ossowski, J. Sichman, & J. Vázquez-Salceda (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3913, pp. 99–113). Springer. Berlin.Criado, N., Argente, E., Garrido, A., Gimeno, J. A., Igual, F., Botti, V., Noriega, P., & Giret, A. (2011). Norm enforceability in Electronic Institutions? In Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VI (Vol. 6541, pp. 250–267). Springer.Dellarocas, C., & Klein, M. (2001). Contractual agent societies. In R. Conte & C. Dellarocas (Eds.), Social order in multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 113–133)., Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations New York: Springer.DeLoach, S. A. (2008). Developing a multiagent conference management system using the o-mase process framework. In Proceedings of the international conference on agent-oriented software engineering VIII (pp. 168–181).DeLoach, S. A., & Garcia-Ojeda, J. C. (2010). O-mase; a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 4(3), 244–280.DeLoach, S. A., Padgham, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., & Thangarajah, J. (2009). Using three aose toolkits to develop a sample design. International Journal Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 3, 416–476.Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., & Winikoff, M. (2007). Open agent systems? Eighth international workshop on agent oriented software engineering (AOSE) in AAMAS07.Dignum, V. (2003). A model for organizational interaction:based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Dignum, V., Meyer, J., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (2003). Formal specification of interaction in agent societies. Formal approaches to agent-based systems (Vol. 2699).Dignum, V., Vazquez-Salceda, J., & Dignum, F. (2005). Omni: Introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organizations. In R. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, & A. Seghrouchni (Eds.)Programming multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3346, pp. 181–198). Berlin: Springer.d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Sierra, C. (2012). Communicating open systems, 186, 38–94.Elsenbroich, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Agent-based modelling. In Modelling norms (pp. 65–84). Dordrecht: Springer.Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodriguez, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2004). AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In AAMAS04 (pp. 236–243).Fenech, S., Pace, G. J., & Schneider, G. (2009). Automatic conflict detection on contracts. In Proceedings of the 6th international colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing, ICTAC ’09 (pp. 200–214).Garbay, C., Badeig, F., & Caelen, J. (2012). Normative multi-agent approach to support collaborative work in distributed tangible environments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion, CSCW ’12 (pp. 83–86). New York, NY: ACM.Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Regulated open multi-agent systems based on contracts. In Information Systems Development (pp. 243–255).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., & Delaney, B. (2012). An analysis of agent-oriented engineering of e-health systems. In 13th international eorkshop on sgent-oriented software engineering (AOSE-AAMAS).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., and Delaney, B. (2013). Analysing the Suitability of Multiagent Methodologies for e-Health Systems. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering XIII, volume 7852, pages 134–150. Springer-Verlag.Garrido, A., Giret, A., Botti, V., & Noriega, P. (2013). mWater, a case study for modeling virtual markets. In New perspectives on agreement technologies (Vol. Law, Gover, pp. 563–579). Springer.Gteau, B., Boissier, O., & Khadraoui, D. (2006). Multi-agent-based support for electronic contracting in virtual enterprises. IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM), 150(3), 73–91.Hollander, C. D., & Wu, A. S. (2011). The current state of normative agent-based systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(2), 6.Hsieh, F.-S. (2005). Automated negotiation based on contract net and petri net. In E-commerce and web technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3590, pp. 148–157).Kollingbaum, M., Jureta, I. J., Vasconcelos, W., & Sycara, K. (2008). Automated requirements-driven definition of norms for the regulation of behavior in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AISB 2008 workshop on behaviour regulation in multi-agent systems, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., April 2008.Li, T., Balke, T., Vos, M., Satoh, K., & Padget, J. (2013). Detecting conflicts in legal systems. In Y. Motomura, A. Butler, & D. Bekki (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 7856, pp. 174–189)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., & Solanki, M. (2010) Towards verifying contract regulated service composition. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 1–29).Lopez, F., Luck, M., & d’Inverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12, 227–250.Lpez, F. y, Luck, M., & dInverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 227–250.Mader, P., & Egyed, A. (2012). Assessing the effect of requirements traceability for software maintenance. In 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM) (pp. 171–180), Sept 2012.Mao, X., & Yu, E. (2005). Organizational and social concepts in agent oriented software engineering. In AOSE IV. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 3382, pp. 184–202).Meyer, J.-J. C., & Wieringa, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Okouya, D., & Dignum, V. (2008). Operetta: A prototype tool for the design, analysis and development of multi-agent organizations (demo paper). In AAMAS (pp. 1667–1678).Malone, T. W., Smith J. B., & Olson, G. M. (2001). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Oren, N., Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Modgil, S., Luck, M., & Miles, S. (2009). Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. COIN (pp. 156–171).Osman, N., Robertson, D., & Walton, C. (2006). Run-time model checking of interaction and deontic models for multi-agent systems. In AAMAS ’06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 238–240). New York, NY: ACM.Pace, G., Prisacariu, C., & Schneider, G. (2007). Model checking contracts a case study. In Automated technology for verification and analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4762, pp. 82–97).Rotolo, A., & van der Torre, L. (2011). Rules, agents and norms: Guidelines for rule-based normative multi-agent systems. RuleML Europe, 6826, 52–66.Saeki, M., & Kaiya, H. (2008). Supporting the elicitation of requirements compliant with regulations. In CAiSE ’08 (pp. 228–242).Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A., & Susi, A. (2009). Designing law-compliant software requirements. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on conceptual modeling, ER ’09 (pp. 472–486).Singh, M. P. Commitments in multiagent systems: Some history, some confusions, some controversies, some prospects.Solaiman, E., Molina-Jimenez, C., & Shrivastav, S. (2003). Model checking correctness properties of electronic contracts. In Service-oriented computing—ICSOC 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2910, pp. 303–318). Berlin: Springer.Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications. Enhancing tropos with commitments (pp. 417–435).Vázquez-Salceda, J., Confalonieri, R., Gomez, I., Storms, P., Nick Kuijpers, S. P., & Alvarez, S. (2009). Modelling contractually-bounded interactions in the car insurance domain. DIGIBIZ 2009.Viganò, F., & Colombetti, M. (2007). Symbolic model checking of institutions. In ICEC (pp. 35–44).Walton, C. D. (2007). Verifiable agent dialogues. Journal of Applied Logic, 5(2):197–213, Logic-Based Agent Verification.Winkler, S., & Pilgrim, J. (2010). A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), 9(4), 529–565.Wooldridge, M., Fisher, M., Huget, M., & Parsons, S. (2002). Model checking multi-agent systems with mable. In AAMAS02 (pp. 952–959). ACM

Real-time agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments

A Cloud Computing system must readjust its resources by taking into account the demand for its services. This raises the need for designing protocols that provide the individual components of the Cloud architecture with the ability to self-adapt and to reach agreements in order to deal with changes in the services demand. Furthermore, if the Cloud provider has signed a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the clients of the services that it offers, the appropriate agreement mechanism has to ensure the provision of the service contracted within a specified time. This paper introduces real-time mechanisms for the agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments. On the one hand, it presents a negotiation protocol inspired by the standard WSAgreement used in web services to manage the interactions between the client and the Cloud provider to agree the terms of the SLA of a service. On the other hand, it proposes the application of a real-time argumentation framework for redistributing resources and ensuring the fulfilment of these SLAs during peaks in the service demand.This work is supported by the Spanish government Grants CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2011-27652-C03-01, TIN2012-36586-C03-01 and TIN2012-36586-C03-03.De La Prieta, F.; Heras Barberá, SM.; Palanca Cámara, J.; Rodríguez, S.; Bajo, J.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). Real-time agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments. AI Communications. 1-24. doi:10.3233/AIC-140626S124[1]V. Aleven and K.D. Ashley, Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment, in: Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED-97, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 39, IOS Press, 1997, pp. 87–94.[2]M. Alhamad, W. Perth, T. Dillon and E. Chang, Conceptual SLA framework for cloud computing, in: 4th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), IEEE Press, 2010, pp. 606–610.Armbrust, M., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A. D., … Rabkin, A. (2010). A view of cloud computing. Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 50. doi:10.1145/1721654.1721672Ashley, K. D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 753-796. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-u[6]P. Barham, B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt and A. Warfield, Xen and the art of virtualization, in: 9th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP-03), ACM Press, 2003, pp. 164–177.Beloglazov, A., Abawajy, J., & Buyya, R. (2012). Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for Cloud computing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 28(5), 755-768. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.04.017[8]A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, Energy efficient allocation of virtual machines in cloud data centers, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 577–578.[9]A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, Energy efficient resource management in virtualized cloud data centers, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 826–831.Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97-143. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00108-5[11]T.J. Bench-Capon, Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game, in: International Conferences on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX-98, Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, 1998, pp. 5–20.[12]R. Buyya, R. Ranjan and R.N. Calheiros, Intercloud: Utility-oriented federation of cloud computing environments for scaling of application services, in: 10th International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing – Volume Part I, ICA3PP’10, Springer-Verlag, 2010, pp. 13–31.[13]R. Buyya, C.S. Yeo and S. Venugopal, Market-oriented cloud computing: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities, in: High Performance Computing and Communications, 2008. HPCC’08. 10th IEEE International Conference, September 2008, IEEE, 2008, pp. 5–13.Chen, C., Li, S. S., Chen, B., & Wen, D. (2011). Agent Recommendation for Agent-Based Urban-Transportation Systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(6), 77-81. doi:10.1109/mis.2011.94[15]Y.Y. Cheng, M. Low, S. Zhou, W. Cai and C.S. Choo, Evolving agent-based simulations in the clouds, in: 3rd International Workshop on Advanced Computational Intelligence (IWACI), 2010, pp. 244–249.[16]F. Dignum and H. Weigand, Communication and Deontic Logic, in: Information Systems – Correctness and Reusability. Selected Papers from the IS-CORE Workshop, R. Wieringa and R. Feenstra, eds, World Scientific Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 242–260.Erdogmus, H. (2009). Cloud Computing: Does Nirvana Hide behind the Nebula? IEEE Software, 26(2), 4-6. doi:10.1109/ms.2009.31[19]J.O. Fitó, I. Goiri and J. Guitart, SLA-driven elastic cloud hosting provider, in: 18th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP), IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 111–118.Fuentes-Fernández, R., Hassan, S., Pavón, J., Galán, J. M., & López-Paredes, A. (2012). Metamodels for role-driven agent-based modelling. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18(1), 91-112. doi:10.1007/s10588-012-9110-5Heras, S., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2009). Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 24(4), 327-352. doi:10.1017/s0269888909990178Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2012.06.005[24]M. Jensen, J. Schwenk, N. Gruschka and L. Iacono, On technical security issues in cloud computing, in: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing, IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 109–116.Kakas, A., Maudet, N., & Moraitis, P. (2005). Modular Representation of Agent Interaction Rules through Argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 189-206. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-2176-4[26]M.J. Kim, H.G. Yoon and H.K. Lee, MAV: An intelligent Multi-agent model based on Cloud computing for resource virtualization, in: Computers, Networks, Systems, and Industrial Engineering, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 365, Springer, 2011, pp. 99–111.Kraus, S., Sycara, K., & Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104(1-2), 1-69. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(98)00078-2[28]W.-Y. Lin, G.-Y. Lin and H.-Y. Wei, Dynamic auction mechanism for cloud resource allocation, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, CCGRID’10, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2010, pp. 591–592.[29]S. Liu, G. Quan and S. Ren, On-line scheduling of real-time services for cloud computing, in: 6th World Congress on Services, SERVICES’10, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 459–464.Navarro, M., Heras, S., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2013). Towards real-time agreements. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3906-3917. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.087Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2011). An argumentation framework for learning, information exchange, and joint-deliberation in multi-agent systems1. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 7(2-3), 95-108. doi:10.3233/mgs-2011-0169Palanca, J., Navarro, M., García-Fornes, A., & Julian, V. (2013). Deadline prediction scheduling based on benefits. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(1), 61-73. doi:10.1016/j.future.2012.05.007[33]C. Pautasso, O. Zimmermann and F. Leymann, Restful web services vs. “big”’ web services: making the right architectural decision, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW’08, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2008, pp. 805–814.[34]J. Peng, X. Zhang, Z. Lei, B. Zhang, W. Zhang and Q. Li, Comparison of several cloud computing platforms, in: 2nd International Symposium on Information Science and Engineering, ISISE’09, IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 23–27.Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945[36]I. Rahwan and G. Simari, eds, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2009.Ross, J. W., & Westerman, G. (2004). Preparing for utility computing: The role of IT architecture and relationship management. IBM Systems Journal, 43(1), 5-19. doi:10.1147/sj.431.0005Schaffer, H. E. (2009). X as a Service, Cloud Computing, and the Need for Good Judgment. IT Professional, 11(5), 4-5. doi:10.1109/mitp.2009.112[39]K.M. Sim, Agent-based cloud commerce, in: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 717–721.Soh, L.-K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A Real-Time Negotiation Model and A Multi-Agent Sensor Network Implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215-271. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5Talia, D. (2012). Clouds Meet Agents: Toward Intelligent Cloud Services. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(2), 78-81. doi:10.1109/mic.2012.28Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Atkinson, K., McBurney, P., & Cortés, U. (2011). Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 25(2), 209-259. doi:10.1007/s10458-011-9174-5[44]A. Toniolo, T. Norman and K. Sycara, An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue, in: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI-12, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 242, IOS Press, 2012, pp. 756–761.[45]W.-T. Tsai, Q. Shao, X. Sun and J. Elston, Real-time service-oriented cloud computing, in: IEEE 6th World Congress on Services, SERVICES’10, IEEE Press, 2010, pp. 473–478.[46]D. Walton, C. Reed and F. Macagno, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, 2008.[47]L. Wang, J. Tao, M. Kunze, A. Castellanos, D. Kramer and W. Karl, Scientific cloud computing: Early definition and experience, in: 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC-08), IEEE Press, 2008, pp. 825–830.[48]Y.O. Yazir, C. Matthews, R. Farahbod, S. Neville, A. Guitouni, S. Ganti and Y. Coady, Dynamic resource allocation in computing clouds using distributed multiple criteria decision analysis, in: IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 91–98.[49]Y. Yu, S. Ren, N. Chen and X. Wang, Profit and penalty aware (pp-aware) scheduling for tasks with variable task execution time, in: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’10, ACM, 2010, pp. 334–339

Strategies for cooperation emergence in distributed service discovery

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cybernetics and Systems on APR 3 2014], available online:http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/01969722.2014.894848[EN] In distributed environments where entities only have a partial view of the system, cooperation plays a key issue. In the case of decentralized service discovery in open agent societies, agents only know about the services they provide and who are their direct neighbors. Therefore, they need the cooperation of their neighbors in order to locate the required services. However, cooperation is not always present in open systems. Non-cooperative agents pursuing their own goals could refuse to forward queries from other agents to avoid the cost of this action; therefore, the efficiency of the decentralized service discovery could be seriously damaged. In this paper, we propose the ombination of incentives and local structural changes in order to promote cooperation in the service discovery process. The results show that, even in scenarios where the predominant behavior is not collaborative cooperation emerges.The work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through grants TIN2009-13839-C03-01, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, CSD2007-0022 (CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010).Del Val Noguera, E.; Rebollo Pedruelo, M.; Botti, V. (2014). Strategies for cooperation emergence in distributed service discovery. Cybernetics and Systems. 45(3):220-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969722.2014.894848S220240453Blanc , A. , Y.K. Liu , and A. Vahdat . “Designing Incentives for Peer-to-Peer Routing.” InProceedings of the 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Vol. 1, pp. 374–385, 2005 .del Val , E. “Semantic Service Management in Service-Oriented Multi-Agent Systems.” Ph.D. thesis, Departament de Sistemes Informàtics i Computació, Universitat Politècnica de València, 2013 .Del Val, E., Rebollo, M., & Botti, V. (2012). Enhancing decentralized service discovery in open service-oriented multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(1), 1-30. doi:10.1007/s10458-012-9210-0DORAN, J. E., FRANKLIN, S., JENNINGS, N. R., & NORMAN, T. J. (1997). On cooperation in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 12(3), 309-314. doi:10.1017/s0269888997003111Eguíluz, V. M., Zimmermann, M. G., Cela‐Conde, C. J., & Miguel, M. S. (2005). Cooperation and the Emergence of Role Differentiation in the Dynamics of Social Networks. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 977-1008. doi:10.1086/428716Griffiths , N. and M. Luck . “Changing Neighbours: Improving Tag-Based Cooperation.” InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1.(AAMAS'10), 249–256. Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2010 .Gu , B. and S. Jarvenpaa . “Are Contributions to p2p Technical Forums Private or Public Goods? An Empirical Investigation.” Paper presented at the 1st Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems, June 4–5, 2004, Harvard University .Hauert, C., Traulsen, A., Brandt, H., Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2007). Via Freedom to Coercion: The Emergence of Costly Punishment. Science, 316(5833), 1905-1907. doi:10.1126/science.1141588Hofmann , L.M. , N. Chakraborty , and K. Sycara . “The Evolution of Cooperation in Self-Interested Agent Societies: A Critical Study.” InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Volume 2 , edited by K. Tumer , P. Yolum , L. Sonenberg , and P. Stone , 685–692. IFAAMAS, 2011 .Lin, W. S., Zhao, H. V., & Liu, K. J. R. (2009). Incentive Cooperation Strategies for Peer-to-Peer Live Multimedia Streaming Social Networks. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 11(3), 396-412. doi:10.1109/tmm.2009.2012915Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560-1563. doi:10.1126/science.1133755Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573-577. doi:10.1038/31225Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(7092), 502-505. doi:10.1038/nature04605Santos, F. C., Santos, M. D., & Pacheco, J. M. (2008). Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature, 454(7201), 213-216. doi:10.1038/nature06940Shneidman , J. and D. C. Parkes . “Rationality and Self-Interest in Peer to Peer Networks.” Paper presented at the 2nd Int. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS’03), February 20–21, 2003, Berkeley, CA .Sigmund, K. (2007). Punish or perish? Retaliation and collaboration among humans. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(11), 593-600. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.012Sigmund, K. (2009). Sympathy and similarity: The evolutionary dynamics of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(21), 8405-8406. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903947106Sigmund, K., Hauert, C., & Nowak, M. A. (2001). Reward and punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(19), 10757-10762. doi:10.1073/pnas.161155698Sun , Q. and H. Garcia-Molina . “Slic: A Selfish Link-Based Incentive Mechanism for Unstructured Peer-To-Peer Networks.” Paper presented at the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS’04), March 23–26, 2004, Washington, DC .Villatoro , D. , J. Sabater-Mir , and S. Sen . “Social Instruments for Robust Convention Emergence.”Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, edited by T. Walsh, 420–425, 2011

Exploring Maintainability Assurance Research for Service- and Microservice-Based Systems: Directions and Differences

To ensure sustainable software maintenance and evolution, a diverse set of activities and concepts like metrics, change impact analysis, or antipattern detection can be used. Special maintainability assurance techniques have been proposed for service- and microservice-based systems, but it is difficult to get a comprehensive overview of this publication landscape. We therefore conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to collect and categorize maintainability assurance approaches for service-oriented architecture (SOA) and microservices. Our search strategy led to the selection of 223 primary studies from 2007 to 2018 which we categorized with a threefold taxonomy: a) architectural (SOA, microservices, both), b) methodical (method or contribution of the study), and c) thematic (maintainability assurance subfield). We discuss the distribution among these categories and present different research directions as well as exemplary studies per thematic category. The primary finding of our SLR is that, while very few approaches have been suggested for microservices so far (24 of 223, ?11%), we identified several thematic categories where existing SOA techniques could be adapted for the maintainability assurance of microservices

Survey on Additive Manufacturing, Cloud 3D Printing and Services

Cloud Manufacturing (CM) is the concept of using manufacturing resources in a service oriented way over the Internet. Recent developments in Additive Manufacturing (AM) are making it possible to utilise resources ad-hoc as replacement for traditional manufacturing resources in case of spontaneous problems in the established manufacturing processes. In order to be of use in these scenarios the AM resources must adhere to a strict principle of transparency and service composition in adherence to the Cloud Computing (CC) paradigm. With this review we provide an overview over CM, AM and relevant domains as well as present the historical development of scientific research in these fields, starting from 2002. Part of this work is also a meta-review on the domain to further detail its development and structure