1. Towards filling the gap between AOSE methodologies and infrastructures: requirements and meta-model Fabiano Dalpiaz¹, Ambra Molesini², Mariachiara Puviani³, Valeria Seidita⁴ ¹ Università degli Studi di Trento ² Alma Mater Studiorum ³ Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia ⁴ Università degli Studi di Palermo WOA08 - Palermo

2. Outline Introduction to MEnSA Our approach – Assembling a Metamodel – Requirements – Selection of fragments – Conceptual map – Metamodel Conclusions and future work F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita2

3. The MEnSA project: why? The development of complex systems requires a new software engineering paradigm – Agent-oriented methodologies – Paradigmatic shift (from OO) at conceptual and technical level – No need to reinvent the wheel – There are many agent-oriented methodologies – Each methodology has different specificities and application areas F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita3

4. The MEnSA project: what? MEnSA –“Methodology for the Engineering of complex Software systems: Agent based approach” –Filling the gap –analysis and design, and implementation –methodologies and infrastructures – Metamodel-based approach – Integration of existing fragments 3+1 partners – Alma Mater Studiorum (Cesena), Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Università degli Studi di Trento, ICAR-CNR Palermo F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita4

5. Our Approach 1.Definition of a set of requirements for the methodology – Generic requirements – Specific requirements derived from the selected methodologies 2.Elicitation and analysis of a set of fragments that satisfy the requirements – starting from Tropos, GAIA, SODA and PASSI F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita5

6. Our Approach 3.Definition of a semantic conceptual map – To find out synonyms and inter-level relations between concepts from different abstraction levels 3.Assembly of an integrated metamodel on the base of the selected fragments F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita6

7. General Requirements F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita7 Transformational approach: from high-level abstraction to low-level concrete entities Support for traceability Support for functional and non-functional requirements Support for goal-oriented and functional-oriented analysis Precise and compact modeling constructs for the concept of agency – Agent, Agent’s rationale, Situated agent, Social Agent

8. Specific Requirements (1) 8 Transformational process – Requirement agent → Design agent → Implementation agent Layering (supported by SODA) – Zooming and Projection mechanisms Goal oriented analysis (Tropos) before functional- oriented analysis (Passi) Interaction – Semantic communication + Ontology + compliance with FIPA ACL 8F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita

9. Specific Requirements (2) 9 Organizational Rules (Supported by GAIA) Environment and topology modeling – SODA artifact and workspace Modeling of non-functional requirements – Tropos soft-goals Modeling of Agent Plan – Should not constrain to a specific kind of agent 9F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita

10. Assembling a meta-model Composition patterns: – Elements from existing meta-models present the same name but have different meanings – Elements have the same meaning but different names – Elements present totally disjoint names and definitions, requiring just a simple composition Additional concepts and relations act as glue Outcome: Conceptual map + Glossary of term F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita10

11. The Conceptual Map 11 Horizontal relations link synonym concepts Vertical relations define inter-level links (realization) 11F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita

12. MEnSA metamodel F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita12

13. MEnSA metamodel: requirements F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita13

14. MEnSA metamodel: design F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita14

15. Conclusion A process to define an integrated agent-oriented meta-model – Identification of the requirements for the target methodology – Selection of a list of fragments from the four considered methodologies. – Construction of a glossary – Definition of a conceptual map of methodologies abstractions Initial version of the meta-model F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita15

16. Future Work Definition of the meta-model’s implementation phase, extracted from a set of MAS infrastructures Refine the metamodel – as a result of the work on the methodological aspects and the validation phase over a case study – splitting the two phases into different and more detailed sub-phases 16 F. Dalpiaz, A. Molesini, M. Puviani, V. Seidita

17. Thanks for your attention dalpiaz@disi.unitn.it ambra.molesini@unibo.it mariachiara.puviani@unimore.it seidita@dinfo.unipa.it