[Modeling] RE: R: R: [Methodology] Terms for first release of the glossary

[Bellifemine Fabio]

I support the opinion of Marc.
> opinion: creating a TC for that should be fine but maybe 
> cumbersome and too long to take some definition directly 
> usable by TCs. Let's say: we keep writing definitions and 
> particularly those related to methodologies and method 
> fragments, as soon as a Glossary TC will emerge, we can move 
> some of our efforts to it (hence justifying its existence).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc-Philippe Huget [mailto:M.P.Huget@csc.liv.ac.uk] 
> Sent: venerd́ 8 agosto 2003 10.02
> To: James Odell
> Cc: Massimo Cossentino; 'FIPA methodology ML'; ModelingTC; 
> fab@fipa.org
> Subject: Re: R: R: [Methodology] Terms for first release of 
> the glossary
> 
> 
> Hello Jim and Massimo,
> 
> James Odell wrote:
> 
> > Dear Massimo,
> >
> > > again I agree in principle but indeed I think that there 
> is a valid 
> > > reason to mantain almost all the terms I proposed for the first 
> > > release because they will be probably part of MAS 
> meta-model of the 
> > > different methodologies and therefore of the general one we will 
> > > identify. This is the case of terms like desire, belief and 
> > > intention that although very general they are surely part of some 
> > > design processes and consequent MAS meta-models. In 
> attach you can 
> > > find a description of the rational that is behind the 
> selection of 
> > > each term. Please could you list the terms you prefer not 
> to be in 
> > > this glossary?
> >
> > Instead of this just being me, I will bring it up at the 
> FIPA meeting. 
> > During the Methodology TC session, we will make the list of 
> terms that 
> > we think should moved from the Methodology TC glossary to a more 
> > general one. OK?
> 
> I agree with both, actually, in my opinion, if we define a 
> methodology through this TC, we need definitions because I am 
> not sure everybody shares the same definition for all the 
> terms, as a consequence, we are sure that if somebody reads 
> the methodology and the glossary, she's aware of what 
> definition we take. In other side, I agree with Jim that some 
> terms are really high-level and the discussion on these ones 
> should involve everybody in FIPA: the ontology term certainly 
> interests WG on it. Well, to give my
> opinion: creating a TC for that should be fine but maybe 
> cumbersome and too long to take some definition directly 
> usable by TCs. Let's say: we keep writing definitions and 
> particularly those related to methodologies and method 
> fragments, as soon as a Glossary TC will emerge, we can move 
> some of our efforts to it (hence justifying its existence).
> 
> Cheers,
> Marc-Philippe
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Marc-Philippe Huget
> 
> Agent Applications, Research and Technology Group
> Department of Computer Science
> University of Liverpool
> Chadwick Building, Peach Street
> L69 7ZF Liverpool
> United Kingdom
> 
> email: mph@csc.liv.ac.uk
> http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~mph
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Methodology mailing list
> Methodology@fipa.org http://www.fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/methodology
> 


====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by
replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you
====================================================================