A Multi-agent System Approach for Management of
Industrial IoT Devices in Manufacturing Processes
Renato L. Cagnin, Ivan R. Guilherme, Jonas Queiroz, Bruno Paulo, Marcilio F. O. Neto
Department of Statistics, Applied Mathematics and Computing
State University of São Paulo Júlio de Mesquita Filho
Rio Claro, Brazil
Abstract— Industry 4.0 is the new industrial revolution that
uses technologies to enable communication and interaction
between devices. In this new environment, applications are
designed to ensure concepts like connection, data sharing,
accessibility and process automation. In a process automation
context, applications must coordinate and manage the execution
of different tasks performed by autonomous devices. Aiming to
support the development of such applications this paper presents
an architecture for the development of an approach based on
Multi-agent systems (MAS), Service-Oriented Architecture and
Semantic Web technologies. The architecture uses MAS
organizational approach and ontologies to ensure and automate
the devices management in IoT environments. A case study in a
simulated industrial environment aiming the manufacturing of
metallic components is presented in order to show the proposal
features and feasibility.
Keywords— Internet of Things, Multi-Agent Systems, Service
Oriented Architecture, Semantic Web Technologies.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a network of heterogeneous
devices communicating with each other in an open and
dynamic environment. Thus, allowing people to connect with
anything, anytime, anywhere and using any path, network or
service [1]. It means IoT promises to create a world where all
the things (objects and devices) in different environments are
connected to the Internet. These things will be able to interact
with each other, publishing and giving access to their
resources and performing tasks autonomously, with minimal
human intervention [2]. Such characteristics make IoT a
feasible approach to handle the requirements of modern
applications in diverse domains, such as in industry, where its
application has been leveraged by initiatives like the Industrial
Internet of Things [3]. In this context, IoT can be used in
scenarios of industrial manufacturing automation, logistics,
process management and many others [4]. Hence, it permits
the appliance of some techniques to coordinate, communicate
and recognize heterogeneous devices in an Industry 4.0
environment [5].
The IoT scenarios are highly complex environments,
primarily because they present a large heterogeneous
component (devices and systems), as well as the large amount
of data produced and communicated between them. It means
the applications need to integrate and publish the devices data
to be widely accessed on different platforms available for
different applications [6]. However, only integrate and provide
users with environment-measured data may not be adequate to
support users’ needs. This means that an IoT environment,
l-)))
mainly in an Industry 4.0, applications, must provide high-
level information and resources to automate the execution of
some tasks according to the users’ needs. Thus, new
approaches for devices management must arise in order to
ensure the cooperation and coordination of the connected
devices during the execution of such tasks.
The Multi-Agent System (MAS) approach provides a set
of appropriate abstractions for dealing with the design and
development of distributed, open, dynamic and complex
heterogeneous systems, characteristics present in Industrial
IoT environments [7]. In this approach, a set of agents are
designed as independent and autonomous components
responsible to manage each device, establish organizations,
and cooperate during the execution of a task in order to
achieve a required goal or user needs [7].
Nonetheless, applications in an IoT environment must also
identify when, where and who are the entities which will be
committed to these tasks. These features have been achieving
by context-aware computing where the usage of ontologies
has been applied for the determination of contextual
information. In this sense, Semantic Web technologies such as
ontologies have also been used to identify specific areas,
enabling devices to extract and process data from objects
deployed in the environment to a context in order to better
support the activities of a user and satisfy their needs [8-10].
This work presents a proposal of an architecture that
integrates MAS approach and Semantic Web technologies.
The architecture organization and components were defined
and specified in order to be used as a reference model to
design and develop adaptive applications for the devices
management in IoT-based environments. The architecture was
tested in a simulated industrial environment for the
manufacturing of metallic components. The paper is structured
as follows: In Section II is presented the related works based
on technologies and concepts used in IoT. Section III and IV
describe the proposed architecture and the implementation
issues, respectively. Section V presents a case study based on
Industry 4.0 environment, and finally, a conclusion about the
feasibility of the proposed architecture.
II. RELATED WORKS
The IoT is a research field that aims to investigate and
propose solutions to address the new challenges related to the
connection, discovery, access, and integration of
heterogeneous devices, as well as with the retrieving, and
processing of the large amount of data produced [11]. In this
context, several approaches have been proposed to handle

these issues, where technologies like service-oriented Finally, the use of ontology and MAS approach ensure
architectures (SOA), semantic web and multi-agent systems, organization and cooperation between devices in IoT
showed to play an important role. applications [18]. Context described using application
ontologies can help agents to check the contextual data of a
The use of SOA approaches in IoT environments allows given action. In Industrial domains, mainly regarding the 4th
system to access and execute device’s operations. For industrial revolution, the combination of these technologies
instance, considering SOA, [4] proposes a SOA-based has been leveraged in the context of Cyber-Physical Systems
architecture, called SOCRADES Integration Architecture, [5], allowing applications to dynamically and autonomously
which manage an IoT environment as a service-oriented, execute tasks, without or with minor human intervention.
hiding the heterogeneity of hardware, software, data formats
and communication protocols. III. PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE
Ontologies have been using for knowledge representation The proposed architecture (Fig. 1) integrates the devices of
and sharing, improving system interoperability and data the IoT environment through a service middleware to MAS
integration. These features are presented in [12], where responsible for devices’ management and tasks’ planning.
ontologies describe the domain concepts such as devices, data Each architecture component is arranged in different layers,
models, events and monitoring and control tasks. Another use being responsible for a set of specific tasks.
of ontologies is the description of the application context in
order to perform the execution of most adequate services in a
given scenario. The work of [13] proposes an architecture for
manages data acquired by devices and coordinate them
according to the user environment and context rules.
Another approach used in IoT environments is the
adoption of MAS, which are a feasible solution to ensure the
execution of automated tasks. The work of [14] presents an
autonomous MAS architecture to control the communication
between devices distributed through network equipment. This
work proposes a four layer architecture: data, control,
knowledge and management. These layers are implemented
from cognitive agents whose functionalities are distributed in
various roles. These roles are organized into two groups of
agents: the cognitive agents and reactive agents. Cognitive
agents are responsible for the control, knowledge and
management layers, and for the supervision of the execution
of the tasks of the other agents. Reactive agents compose the
data layer, responsible for the operational tasks.
Fig. 1. Proposed MAS architecture overview
The usage of layers for architectural approaches increases
system decoupling of data management and activities from the A. Physical Layer
network level. In [15] are present an architecture based on
Corresponds to the physical devices connected to the
MAS paradigm is proposed presenting the separation between
network. These devices are responsible to provide the
the layers of the system agents and the layer composed of
resources and services used by the system. To ensure system
devices. These agents are able to communicate and negotiate
interoperability, SOA technologies wraps devices resources
services to achieve system objectives. The activities are
and allow publishing, subscribing and discovery features
organized according to the roles of each agent, allowing the
along the network. It means that the agents of the MAS can
system data integration actions, sensor management, data
easily and seamlessly search, discover and access them.
processing and adaptation to changes.
The layers in this architecture are connected by B. Multi-agent Layer
interoperability technologies, as shown in [16], where the This layer is organized in two sub-layers, called Reactive
authors propose a MAS approach to simulate a dynamic and and Cognitive Layers. They define a set of agents responsible
emerging infrastructure of a large number of distributed for the integration and management of the resources.
devices, enabled to provide resources in the form of Web
1) Reactive Layer
Services. Consequently, a set of agents with different
Reactive agents are responsible for the detection,
functions are responsible for handling various tasks
communication and management of physical devices. In this
throughout the system. In [17] a multi-agent approach to
layer, the agents play the following roles:
integrated Web and IoT, provides autonomous features for
IoT, enabling the management of the components. In addition, ● Searcher Agent (SA): Searches for devices. Thus when a
the multi-agent proposal on the Web, allows flexible new device is connected, the SA searches for the semantic
processing in heterogeneous platforms using Web protocols description of this device and their resources. After the
and data language with independent formats for semantic description is found, this agent initializes a
communications between agents. "Resource Agent” for handling devices resources. The


semantic description of the various types of devices is
predefined and stored in the system Knowledge Base.
● Resource Agent (RA): defines a set of activities for the
management of devices in accordance with its requirements
and specifications. During the execution of tasks, a RA
executes the devices’ operations according to the knowledge
described in the system Knowledge Base. Agents playing this
role should also monitor the state of the devices’ variables,
informing the agents of the Cognitive Layer possible changes
and abnormalities.
2) Cognitive layer
Responsible to perform reasoning and inferences along the
application knowledge in order to control and coordinate other
agents in the execution of the application tasks. These agents
are responsible for decision-making and plan coordination. To
perform this set of functions, this layer presents five roles
called:
● Knowledge Manager Agent (KMA): provides an access
interface to the system knowledge for the other agents. This
knowledge includes the semantic description of data models,
devices and processes and is structured according to
application ontologies. Contexts (i.e., a set of system
scenarios/conditions) and tasks are also described in
ontologies and are stored in the knowledge base.
● Monitor Agent (MA): coordinates the RA’s during the
execution of a task. This agent must check if the task is being
executed according to the organization functional
specification. This agent is also responsible to perform the task
execution according to the system needs and according to the
task priority specification. Similarly, when changes occur in
the system context, this agent is responsible for taking the
necessary measures, such as abort the execution of a task.
● Organization Manager Agent (OMA): responsible for
the creation of organizations composed of RA’s and MA’s to
carry out the tasks associated with the identified contexts. The
determination of the application context means to analyze the
current resources (devices and information) and associate
them with the tasks that can be performed. When a context is
identified, this agent establishes a new organization formed by
the RA’s that are able to perform the related tasks.
● User Agent (UA): The agents performing this role are
responsible to manage the interfaces between the users and the
application, e.g., towards graphical interfaces present the
functionalities that the system can execute with all the
connected devices.
IV. THE ARCHITECTURE IMPLEMENTATION
The architecture implementation uses different
technologies based on SOA, MAS and Semantic Web. Each
layer was implemented by a set of different frameworks. The
frameworks used are the JMEDS (https://sourceforge.net/
projects/ws4d-javame/) for Devices and Services Layers,
JaCaMo (http://jacamo.sourceforge.net/) for the Multi-Agent
Layer and Apache Jena (https://jena.apache.org/) as an
interface for Knowledge Base. In this sense, according to
environment programming based on JaCaMo approach,
functional entities called artifacts are used as support tools for

the agents, and as interfaces between the MAS and other
layers. The artifacts encapsulate the other Java frameworks
(JMEDS and Jena) functionalities (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. JaCaMo entities used in the architecture implementation
A. Physical Layer implementation
The Devices and Services layer was implemented by the
components of the framework JMEDS (https://sourceforge.net
/projects/ws4d-javame/). The framework JMEDS implements
the Devices Profile for Web Services(DPWS) stack
specification for Java- based applications. The DPWS is a set
of service-based protocol which presents functionalities for
finding, detecting and discovering devices and services [19]. It
also supports Plug & Play features that allow the agents in the
architecture to handle new connected devices.
B. The Multi-agent Layer implementation
The multi-agent layer was implemented by the JaCaMo
framework. JaCaMo not only allows the implementation of
BDI agents [20], but also offers tools for the implementation
of organizations. In these organizations, agents play a defined
role, which is responsible for missions and goal achievements.
The organization establishes three dimensions known as
structural, where the interaction between the roles and
restrictions are specified; functional dimension states the
coordination of the tasks of each agent in the organization; and
the normative, which links the roles to the functional tasks.
This allows the coordination of agents’ achievements along a
task execution. In this sense, the agents can also interact with
each other cooperating in the execution of tasks. Tasks are
described by the relationships between the structural,
functional and normative dimensions of the agent organization
according to the Organization Oriented Programming [21].
For the structural dimension, the roles are organized into
groups according to the tasks that each one executes. The
groups are called “Reactive Layer” and “Cognitive Layer”.
The agents performing the “Searcher Agent” and the
“Resource Agent” roles compose the group “Reactive Layer”.
The agents performing the other roles compose the “Cognitive
Layer”.
 There are three abstract roles named “Cognitive Agent”,
“Reactive Agent” and “Agent”, used to represent the
authority-acquaintance relationship between both groups of
agents.
The functional dimension is represented by sets of
missions and plans, these concepts are components of the
organization schemes. These plans and missions are used by
the Organization Manager Agent and the Resource Agents
who will manage the execution of the operations of the
various connected devices. The scheme can be characterized
as a goal decomposition tree that describes the order and the
goals and subgoals, each mission must be achieved to ensure a
global goal.
The normative dimension relates the structural dimension
with the functional dimension as the norms relates a set of
missions to a specific role.
The OMA uses two artifacts called GroupBoard and
SchemeBoard, these artifacts are part of the JaCaMo
framework. The first one (GroupBoard) is used by this agent
to check the organizational dimension related to the roles, and
to check the viability for the organization to execute a global
task. The second (SchemeBoard) is used by the RA and MA in
the architecture to execute each task according to the missions,
norms and global plans.
The MA uses the SchemeBoard created by the OMA agent
to ensure that the scheme is executed according to the
functional specification needs, the task control was
implemented only with the usage of the JaCaMo KQML
messages. As RAs execute a particular mission in a functional
scheme, the MA checks the status of this mission. In the case
of failure, or the need for waiting a particular resource, the
scheme can be destroyed or stopped. These actions can be
performed by coordination of these agents.
C. The knowledge base implementation
The Knowledge Manager agent handles an Artifact which
represents an interface with the ontology responsible to
describe semantically the devices data. This artifact
encapsulates the Apache Jena Framework offering to this
agent the ability to query and retrieve knowledge from the
ontology. All the agents in the architecture can request or send
to the KMA agent data to be consulted or annotated.
The application ontology was developed in OWL
language, with Protégé (http://protege.stanford.edu/). The
concepts described in the ontology are the DPWS devices
according to the JMEDS specification and the DPWS
metadata; the organization definition according to the Moise
framework specification and contexts.
The concepts described in the KB (Knowledge Base) are
related to the necessary technologies used during the
execution of the functional architecture requirements, i.e.,
concepts related to the tasks, the rules of the organization, the
devices and the contexts. For the device description some
classes of the Semantic Sensor Network ontology
(www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/) were reused in order to increase
the semantic interoperability.

During the execution of a task the system will search for
the related resources needed in the IoT environment. The
resources necessary to accomplish a given task is described as
devices concepts such as its embedded services and
operations.
Once the task has been requested or triggered
automatically by the system, it is necessary to identify the
roles and missions that each agent will perform. In this context
a mission is a set of goals to be achieved by the organization's
Resource Agents. In addition, the goals of each agent are
associated with the operations of the devices connected to the
Service Layer.
Finally, the last set of concepts in the KB is associated to
generic concepts to describe when and who will perform a
certain system task. As time dependent context, a task can be
executed in a specific time instant or continually in an interval
of time. From this information, the system can tell whether
the task will be performed automatically or from a user
request.
V. CASE STUDY
The results presented in this section stand for a simulation
scenario representing an intelligent factory, which produces
metallic components. The process simulated in this case study
can be divided in six stages presented in Fig. 3.
Begin Melting Degassing
Injection of
molded metal
End Painting Heat treatment Structural
inspection
Fig. 3. Overview of the manufacturing process
The environment of this case study presents several
different devices commonly used in such process. The devices
are a furnace, which is used as a melting unity for metal
alloys, a degassing oven, an injection unity, a x-ray unity, a
thermal treatment unity and a painting unity.
For this purpose, a DPWS simulator was implemented,
written in Java language, which contains a set of JMEDS
devices classes simulating the real devices. Each device
presents services representing machinery functions used along
the process. Each of these functions was designed according to
the real machines presented in an industrial environment. Each
simulation was stopped as system achieved the global task
after thirty times. In each simulation the system has to detect,
identify and execute a global task, with no human
intervention, only using the technologies described in the
section IV.
A global task representing the whole process was created
and stored in the KB according to the JaCaMo functional
specification. Each set of tasks performed by a different agent
is defined as a mission related to the agent role.
Both structural and functional specifications for this case
study are represented as OML diagrams [21] (see Fig. 4 and
Fig. 5). In this organizational specification each RA is
considered as a machinery operator, while the other agents are
responsible for tasks of monitoring and controlling of the
overall production stages.
Fig. 4. Case study structural specification of the organization
Fig. 5. Functional specification of the organization
The organization specification ensures that all the
individual goals of the RA can be achieve according to the
organizational rules. It means that all agents will execute a
given individual task along the overall process as specified by
the manufacturing plans. The normative specification will
relate a mission to a role. And the role is related to an IoT
device according to its semantic description. For example, RA
handling a furnace device, will have to commit to a mission,
where “castingfeedstock” (Fig. 5) is one of its goals. For this
purpose, KMA will query the KB ontology to check which
device relates to this goal. According to the device semantic
description, KMA retrieves the role “furnaceOp” and sends it
to the OMA and the RA. This interaction is achieved by
exchange of KQML messages as AgentSpeak believes. Using
the device’s semantic description and MOISE specification,
system can assign the expected roles to each of the RAs.
Fig. 6. Searcher detecting devices during simulation initialization
For a manufacturing plan starts, SA looks for the required
resources needed (Fig. 6). For this purpose, system will wait

for a new connected device or will search for the network
using a common namespace.
As new devices are found, SA starts new RAs that will
retrieve devices’ metadata (Fig. 7). All the devices’ metadata
are send to the cognitive agents. These metadata will ensure if
a given RA can play a role during the manufacturing
execution.
Fig. 7. Device’s metadata retrieved by RA
OMA, will check if all required connected devices are
present to start a new manufacturing plan. According to the
devices specification searched in the KB, OMA, sends a role
to each of RA, able to enter the organization according to the
resource handled. RA will play this role during the
manufacturing plan execution (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. RA agents receiving a role according to the resource handled.
As all the RAs receives a specific role, OMA then creates
a “schemeboard” and starts a MA responsible to check the
organization missions and eventual failures during the
manufacturing execution. In this stage, the system has a total
of 11 agents running, where 6 are RAs responsible to manage
the different industrial devices.
The RAs will then commit to a mission, as described in the
organization plans. It means that each agent will achieve its
goals that are relating to the real devices’ operations as
predefined by the functional specification. As the system
finishes the task and all RAs achieve its corresponding goals,
the MA starts a new manufacturing plan (Fig. 9). The MA can
also stop a task if any of the missions or goals not fulfilled.
For this purpose, MA checks each of agent’s obligation status.
A total of 10 different simulations were executed and, in
all of them, all of the expected number of goodies were
produced, i.e., the system achieved the expected global plan.
The DPWS proved to be a flexible tool for access, discovery
and identification of the devices. The ontology was necessary
for the system integrate the device’s metadata with the MAS
organizational approach. The JaCaMo framework presented as
an efficient tool for coordinate devices. Although, some issues
were noted when system tried to execute two tasks
simultaneously.
Fig. 9. MA agent starting a new task.
VI. CONCLUSION
This work proposed an architecture based on MAS, SOA
and Semantic Web technologies to automate the integration
and management of devices in IoT environments. Together,
these technologies can create a software infrastructure to
support the development of applications based on IoT
environments, allowing the execution and coordination of tasks
according to the context. Ontologies were used to describe
tasks’ and agent’s organization that allowed the system to
dynamically and automatically select and execute tasks with
non-human intervention.
A prototype system was implemented and tested in a
simulated environment of a manufacturing context. In this
context the system demonstrated the ability to adapt,
incorporating new features; and flexibility presented several
possibilities to perform tasks by simply changing the field of
concepts in KB. In addition, future works propose use of
ontologies to describe security and monitoring features, the
possibility for the system connect to devices using a different
service technology, the execution of multiple tasks and the
application of the architecture in another IoT contexts.
REFERENCES
[1] O. Vermesan, P. Friess, P. Guillemin, “Internet of things strategic
research roadmap,” The Cluster of European Research Projects, 2009,
available from URL http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/
pdf/IoT_Cluster_Strategic_Research_Agenda_2011.pdf, 2009
[2] C. Perera, A. Zaslavsky; P. Christen, D. Georgakopoulos, “Context
Aware Computing for The Internet of Things: A Survey”. IEEE
Comunications, vol. 16, n. 1,pp. 414–454, 2014.

[3] L. Da Xu, W. He and S. Li, "Internet of Things in Industries: A Survey",
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 10, Issue: 4, pp. 2233
- 2243, 2014.
[4] P. Spiess, S. Karnouskos, D. Guinard, D. Savio, O. Baecker, L. Souza,
V. Trifa, SOA-based integration of the internet of things in enterprise
services, in: Proc. of IEEE ICWS 2009, Los Angeles, USA, July 2009.
[5] J. Lee, B. Bagheri, Hung-An Kao, "A Cyber-Physical Systems
architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems”,
Manufacturing Letters, v. 3, pp. 18-23, 2015.
[6] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, M. Palaniswami. “Internet of Things
(IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions”. Future
Generation Computer Systems, v. 29, n. 7, 1645–1660, 2013.
[7] A. W. Colombo, S. Karnouskos, J. M. Mendes, P. Leitão, “Chapter 4 -
Industrial Agents in the Era of Service-Oriented Architectures and
Cloud-Based Industrial Infrastructures”, Industrial Agents pp. 67-87,
Morgan Kaufmann, 2015.
[8] H. Aloulou, M. Mokhtari, T. Tiberghien, J. Biswas, C. Phua, L.
Kenneth, H. Jin, P. Yap. “Deployment of assistive living technology in a
nursing home environment: methods and lessons learned”. BMC
medical informatics and decision making, v. 13, 2013.
[9] G. D. Abowd, A. K. Dey, P. J. Brown, N. Davies, M. Smith, P.
Steggles..”Towards a better understanding of context and context-
awareness”. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on
Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, London, UK: Springer-Verlag,
pp. 304–307, 1999.
[10] M. Ruta, F. Scioscia, E. DIi Sciascio, D. Rotondi, S. Piccione, S.
“Semantic-Based Knowledge Dissemination and Extraction in Smart
Environments”. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, 27,
1289–1294, 2013.
[11] A. M. Alberti, D. Singh. “Internet of Things: Perspectives, Challenges
and Opportunities”. International Workshop on Telecommunications
(IWT 2013), May 6-9, 2013.
[12] Z. Song, A. Cardenas, R. Masuoka,. “Semantic Middleware for the
Internet of Things”. Internet of Things (IOT), Tokyo, Japan, November
29-December 1, 2010.
[13] S. N. Han, G. M. Lee, N. Crespi, N. “Semantic Context-Aware Service
Composition for Building Automation System”. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, v. 10, n. 1, 752–761, 2014.
[14] G. Pujolle, “An Autonomic-oriented Architecture for the Internet of
Things”. In Proc. of the IEEE JVA International Symposium on Modern
Computing, vol. 1, pp. 163-168, 2006.
[15] R. Fuentes-Fernández, M. Guijarro, G. Pajares, A multi-agent system
architecture for sensor networks. Sensors, Vol. 9(12), pp. 10244-10269,
2009.
[16] S. Karnouskos, M; M. J. Tariq. “Using multi-agent systems to simulate
dynamic infrastructures populated with large numbers of web service
enabled devices”. International Symposium on Autonomous
Decentralized Systems, pages. 1–7, 2009
[17] P. Leong, L. Liming. Multiagent “Web for the Internet of Things”. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Science and
Applications (ICISA), 1 – 4, 2014.
[18] P. Angulo-Lopez, G. Jimenez-Perez. “Collaborative agents framework
for the Internet of Things”. Workshop Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Intelligent Environments, 191 – 199, 2012.
[19] Docs.oasis-open.org. (2018). OASIS Devices Profile for Web Services
(DPWS). [online] Available at: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-
dd/ns/dpws/2009/01 [Accessed 1 Jun. 2018].
[20] A. S. Rao. “AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical
computable language” in Proceeding MAAMAW '96 Proceedings of the
7th European workshop on Modelling autonomous agents in a multi-
agent world : agents breaking away: agents breaking away, 42-55, 1996.
[21] J. Hübner, J. Sichman, O. Boissier. “Using the Moise+ for a Cooperative
Framework of MAS Reorganisation” Advances in Artificial
Intelligence–SBIA, 481-517, 2004.