Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-79488-2_7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Agent Framework for Processing FIPA-ACL Messages Based on Interaction Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this research, the underlying MAS, co mposed of search engines and translators, is imp lemented with the CAPNET framework [41] in C# .Net. We also developed a GUI and Administrative Agents.…”
Section: Implementati On Of Rostammentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this research, the underlying MAS, co mposed of search engines and translators, is imp lemented with the CAPNET framework [41] in C# .Net. We also developed a GUI and Administrative Agents.…”
Section: Implementati On Of Rostammentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The paper considers a six-layered FIPA-ACL model which is inspired in a recent revised FIPA-ACL model [7]. The approach based on layers is taken to better organize and build the interaction components from an engineering perspective because it lets specify not only interaction components but also computation in the context of runtime message validation process [8]. The focus of the paper is to describe the components needed at each layer by means of development tools implemented in our agent interaction framework and not to discuss in depth this communication model.…”
Section: Fipa-acl Communication Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our previous work a FIPA-ACL interaction framework was described through three main notions: interaction space, interaction models and interaction architecture [8].…”
Section: Interaction Space Componentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Each information exchange between agents is wrapped inside an ACL message before being sent to the receiver, who performs the response with the additional overhead of checking semantics to determine whether the received message content can be interpreted, that is whether it is meaningful [221]. This procedure is quite challenging in open applications, where not all agents' messages are expected to carry content that is semantically correct and consistent.…”
Section: Reply-bymentioning
confidence: 99%