representing agent uml a formalism for specifying

© 2000, James Odell Agent Interaction Protocols in UML

Representing

Agent InteractionProtocols

in UML

James J. Odell

H. Van Dyke Parunak

Bernhard Bauer

© 2000, James Odell Agent Interaction Protocols in UML Page 2

Agent UMLA Formalism for

Specifying Multiagent

Software Systems

Bernhard BauerJörg P. MüllerJames Odell

Intelligent Autonomous Agents© Siemens AG


AN AGENT CONVERSATION

Seq Sndr Rcvr Utterance Rspndsto

Repliesto

Re-solves

Com-pletes

1. A B,C,D REQUEST: Please send me 50 widgets at yourcatalog price by next Thursday.

2. B C QUESTION: Are you bidding on A’s RFQ? 13. C B INFORM: Yes, I am. 2 2 24. B A REFUSE 3 1 15. C A PROPOSE (INFORM + REQUEST): How about

40 widgets at catalog price by next Friday?1 1

6. A C REQUEST: Please send me 40 widgets atcatalog price by next Friday.

5 5 5

7. C A COMMIT: I plan to send y ou 40 widgets atcatalog price by next Friday.

6 6 6

8. D A COMMIT: I plan to send y ou 50 widgets atcatalog price by next Thursday.

1 1 1

9. A C ASSERT: I’ve found a better supplier, and amnot relying on your COMMIT.

7,8 7

10. C A REFUSE: I’m abandoning my COMMIT. 9 9 711. D A SHIP: Here are your widgets. Please pay me. 1 1 812. A D ASSERT + REQUEST: You’re five short. Please

send the difference.11 11

13. D A SHIP: Here are five more widgets. Please payme.

12 12 12

14. A D PA Y 13 13 13


WINOGRAD-FLORES VERSION OF AN

AGENT INTERACTION PROTOCOL (AIP)

After Smith and Cohen 1995

1 2

8 9

7

43 5A: REQUEST

B: PROPOSE

A: ASSERT O

ut

B: REFUSE

B: SHIP A: PAY

A: ASSERT BadA: ASSER

T Out

A: A

SSER

T Ou

tB: REFU

SE

A: REFUSE

B: COMMIT


STANDARDIZATION

Analysis and Design Task Force (ADTF) ofObject Management Group (OMG)

Object Management Groupwww.omg.org

(508) 820-4300

Mission

❏ To enable developers to better understand how to developapplications using OT—thereby growing the market.

❏ To recommend technology that interoperates across thelifecycle of A&D tools designs/work products.

❏ To recommend technology that enables reuse of designs andwork products developed using A&D tools

❏ To recommend technology that has common semantics,meta-model, and abstract syntax for A&D methodologies.

❏ To leverage existing OMG specifications.

Overall goal: vendor-neutral common semantics, meta-

model, and abstract syntax for A&D methodologies

OA&D TF RFP-1 - approved and released June 1996Submissions due: 17 Jan 1997; Revisions due: 1 September 1997

Selection: 25 September 1997; Adoption: November 1997


MOF/OADF/BOF ARCHITECTURE

Met

aMod

el S

peci

aliz

atio

n

Low

Specific

Generic

High

Meta-Object Facility

OA&D (UML)Facility

Common Business Objects

Business Object Facility

Mfg Fin Med

CORBA 3.0

M3

M2

M2

M1


UML DIAGRAMS

❏ Static Diagrams

❏ Class diagrams

❏ Packages

❏ Component diagrams

❏ Dynamic Diagrams

❏ Statechart

❏ Collaboration diagrams

❏ Sequence diagrams

❏ Activity diagrams

❏ Deployment diagrams

❏ Use Case diagrams

So, which will be useful for representing

agent interaction protocols?


AGENTS STANDARDIZATION

AND AGENT UML (AUML)

❑ OMG Agents Working Group recommends standards foragent technology where appropriate—particularly theOMG's Object Management Architecture (OMA).(www.omg.org)

❑ FIPA (Federated Intelligent Physical Agents) has beenworking to develop and promote standardization in thearea of agent interoperability since 1996. It has an on-going work program, meeting around the globe on aquarterly basis, with excess of 50 member organizations.(www.fipa.org)


A COMMON AIPREPRESENTATION

UML Sequence Diagrams

FIPA Contract Net Protocol

call-for-proposal

Initiator Participant

refuse

not-understood

propose

accept-proposal

reject-proposal

inform

cancel

deadline

x

x


INTERACTION PROTOCOLS CAN BE

SPECIFIED IN MORE DETAIL

Role-1 Role-2

••• •••

CA-1

CA-2

CA-3

CA-4

Role-3x

y

g z

Role-2


A LAYERED APPROACH TO AIPs

❏ Level 1: Representing the overall protocol

❏ Level 2: Representing interaction among agents

❏ Level 3: Representing internal agent processing


USING PACKAGES TO EXPRESS

“NESTED” PROTOCOL

call-for-proposal

Purchasing

Supplying

Broker Retailer Wholesaler

request

inform

propose

•••


LEVEL 1

Generic AIP expressed

as a template package

contract initiation

call-for-proposal


Initiator Participant

refuse

not-understood

propose

accept-proposal

reject-proposal

inform

cancel

deadline

x

x

Initiator, ParticipantDeadline

call-for-proposal, refuse*, not-understood*, propose,

reject-proposal*, accept-proposal*, cancel*, inform*


BINDING THE PARAMENTERSOF THE FIPA� CONTRACT NET

PROTOCOL PACKAGE TEMPLATE

Buyer, Seller


8/8/99 at 12:00

seller-rfp, refuse-1, refuse-2, not-understood, propose,reject-proposal, accept-proposal, cancel, inform


APPLYING A TEMPLATE TO

A PARTICULAR SCENARIO

seller-rfp

Buyer Seller

refuse-1

not-understood

propose

accept-proposal

reject-proposal

inform

cancel

deadline:8/8/99 at

12:00 hoursx

x

xrefuse-2


LEVEL 2:

Basic format of Sequence Diagramsfor agent communication

Agent-1/Role:Class

CA-1

Agent-2/Role:Class

CA-2


CONCURRENT COMMUNICATIONWITH AN AGENT PLAYING

DIFFERENT ROLES

CA-1

Agent

or[role-1]

[role-1]

Agent Agent Agent

CA-2

CA-3

CA-1

CA-2

CA-3

Agent Agent Agent Agent

or

CA-1

CA-2

CA-3

CA-1

CA-2

CA-3

Agent Agent Agent Agent

or

CA-1

CA-2

CA-3

CA-1

CA-2

CA-3

x x

x


SEQUENCE DIAGRAM

Example

A /Negotiator

C /Contractor1

C /Contractor2

assert + request

pay

B /Contractor

request

question

inform

refuse

refuse

propose

commit

commit

assert

ship

ship

request

A /Customer

B /Competitor

Analyzer

C /Competitor

D /Contractor

D /Debtor

<<rolechange>>

<<rolechange>>

<<rolechange>>


DETECTING ROLES AS TIME INTERVALS

IN A SEQUENCE DIAGRAM

(only A’s roles labeled)

A : C : D :

assert + request

pay

B :

request

questioninform

refuse

refuse

propose

commit

commit

assert

ship

ship

request

<<role: customer>>

<<role: customer>>

<<role: customer>>

<<role: negotiator>>



D :

ROLES AS PARALLEL BRANCHES

IN A SEQUENCE DIAGRAM

C :

assert + request

pay

B :

request

question

informrefuse

refuse

propose

commit

commit

assert

ship

ship

request

A :

<<role: customer>>

<<role:negotiator>>

<<role:contractor>>

<<role:contractor>>

<<role:contractor>>

<<role:contractor>>

<<role:competitoranalyzer>>

<<role:competitor>>

<<role:debtor>>


ROLES AS TYPES

WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL AGENTS

Negotiator Contractor

assert + request

pay

Contractor

request

questioninform

refuse

refuse

propose

commit

commit

assert

ship

ship

request

CustomerCompetitor

AnalyzerDebtor

<<role change>>

<<role change>>

<<role change>>

*


COLLABORATION DIAGRAM

An alternative representation

12: assert + request14:

6:

2: question

3:

4:

10: refuse

5: propose7: commit

8: commit11: ship

9: assert

13: ship

1.1: request

<<role change>>

1.2: request

1.3: request

<<role change>>

<<role change>>

C /Contractor2

C /Contractor1

B /Contractor

A Customer

B /Competitor

Analyzer

C /Competitor

D /Contractor

D /Debtor

A /Negotiator


ROLES ON MESSAGES

IN A COLLABORATION DIAGRAM

(only roles for A shown)

1.3: request<<role: customer>>

12: assert + request<<role: customer>>

14: pay<<role: customer>>

2: question

3: inform

4: refuse

5: propose 7: commit10: refuse

8: commit11: ship13: ship

1.1: request<<role: customer>> 1.2: request

<<role: customer>> 6: request

<<role: negotiator>> 9: assert


B :

A :

C :

D :


ProcessOrder

CreateQuoteAccept

QuoteAcceptOrder

PlaceOrder

MatchOrder and

Quote

CloseOrder

UpdateQuote

SettleOrder

ACTIVITY DIAGRAMS

Another alternative representation


ORDER PROCESSING:

ACTIVITY DIAGRAMS WITH SWIMLANES

Customer Broker Market MakerECN

ProcessOrder

CreateQuoteAccept

QuoteAcceptOrder

PlaceOrder

MatchOrder and

Quote

CloseOrder

UpdateQuote

SettleOrder


ORDER PROCESSING:

ACTIVITY DIAGRAMSWITH SWIMLANES AND OBJECT FLOW

ProcessOrder

CreateQuoteAccept

QuoteAcceptOrder

PlaceOrder

Match Order and

Quote

CloseOrder

UpdateQuote

SettleOrder

Customer Broker Market MakerECN

Order[requested] Order

[unfilled]

Order [accepted]

Quote[unfilled]

Order[filled]

Quote[accepted]

Quote[filled]

Order[closed]

Quote[updated]


LEVEL 3

Generic AIP expressed

as a template package

completed

(Payment)(Invoice)

OrderAccepted

Orderplaced

OrderClose

Orderaccepted

Orderassembled

OrderShip

Ordershipped

Order

Paymentaccepted

OrderAssembled

Customer

Place order

Completed

Order Processor Invoice Sender Payment Receiver

Invoice request

Received payment

Invoice

Prepare/send

PaymentProcess


STATECHART NOTATION

Even another alternative

Proposed

Rejected

Aborted

Reneged

Committed Paid

A: REQUEST

B: PROPOSE

B: SHIP

A: PAYA: ASSERT Bad

B: COMMIT

A: ASSERT Out

A: ASSERT Out

B. RENEGE

B: REFUSEA: ASSERT Out

B: REFUSE

Open Closed

Requested Shipped

A state-based speech-act version

of the Winograd-Flores protocol

in UML statechart notation


REPRESENTING AGENT

INTERACTION PROTOCOLS

IN UML

❏ Level 1: Representing the overall protocol

❏ Level 2: Representing interaction among agents

❏ Level 3: Representing internal agent processing


OTHER UML EXTENSION

Package specifying agentsinstead of operations as interface points.

interfaceagent

NegotiatorAgent

• • •

ManufacturingCell

CommonFunctionAgents

ResourceAgent Resource

0..*

1..*

an aggregate

CommonFunctionAgents

ProcessPlanning

Agent

CapacityManager

Agent

AccountManager

Agent

1..

0..

DispatchAgent

• • •

telescopingagent

packages


OTHER UML EXTENSION

Adding mobility to deployment diagrams.

SalesWeb Internet server

Accountingmainframe

Inventorymainframe

CorporateNovell

Network/SQL

Internet

SalesAgent

ShopperAgent

Salesperson'slaptop

ShopperAgent

<<at-home>>

<<mobile>>


OTHER UML EXTENSION

Representing cloning, mitosis, and reproductionusing sequence and activity diagrams

Dolly:Sheep

Dolly2:Sheep

<<clone>><<prototype>>

Class Diagram

Dolly:Sheep

Dr_Frankenstein:Scientist

Dolly2:Sheep

get specs

<<clone>>

Sequence Diagram

A:Amoeba

A1:Amoeba

<<mitosis>>

A2:Amoeba

Mitosis

Sequence Diagram

Junior:Starfish

John:Starfish

Janet:Starfish

<<reproduction>>

Bisexual

Collaboration Diagram


OTHER UML EXTENSION

Representing parasitic, symbiotic, and emergencerelationship using class diagrams

Dog

Flea

0..*

0..*

<<host/parasite>>

Tree

Epiphyte

0..*

1

<<symbiosis>>

Market

Consumer

0..*

0..*

<<emergence>>


RepresentingAgent Interaction Protocols

(and then some)in UML

James J. Odell

H. Van Dyke Parunak

Bernhard Bauer

Agent UMLA Formalism for Specifying

Multiagent Software Systems

Bernhard Bauer

Jörg P. Müller

James Odell

representing agent uml a formalism for specifying

Documents