2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating software engineering techniques for developing complex systems with multiagent approaches

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on our previous work [54,55,56,58], the study of the different approaches available in the literature [16,25,84,107], and the requirements for developing these systems (Sect. 3.2), we propose a set of questionnaires that guide the analysis and comparison of methodologies for developing normative open systems.…”
Section: Comparison Of Methodologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Based on our previous work [54,55,56,58], the study of the different approaches available in the literature [16,25,84,107], and the requirements for developing these systems (Sect. 3.2), we propose a set of questionnaires that guide the analysis and comparison of methodologies for developing normative open systems.…”
Section: Comparison Of Methodologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This section analyzes the characteristics that an agent methodology for analyzing and designing systems of this kind should have. This analysis is derived from our previous studies [54,56,58], related literature [12,31,34,40,75,86], and the study of case studies from different application domains [15,24,61,79,87,115].…”
Section: Requirements For Designing Normative Open Multi-agent Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to undertake a critical assessment for the proposed framework, an evaluation criterion has been prepared by customizing the criteria adopted in [31,32]. The evaluation measure we have used in this case is qualitative and is defined as "H" for highly supportive, "M" for medium or partially supportive, and "L" for less supportive.…”
Section: Set Up Evaluation Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to analyze and compare ANEMONA-S + Thomas with other approaches we have used a MAS evaluation framework called MASEV [27]. This framework allows analyzing and comparing methods and tools for developing MAS in terms of general requirements, offered method guidelines and the support for the integration of MAS and services.…”
Section: Qualitative Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%