[Modeling] RE: [IP] Fipa Interaction Protocol Library Spec

[G Hopmans [Morpheus]]

Hello Marc-Philippe and all,

I used the correct version of the working draft. My point about the
footer and the date is not relevant. I suppose I better drank some
coffee on my Saturday morning before answering :)

Marc-Phillippe wrote:

 ~-----Original Message-----
 ~From: M.P.Huget@csc.liv.ac.uk [mailto:M.P.Huget@csc.liv.ac.uk] 
 ~Sent: maandag 2 juni 2003 10:37
 ~To: G Hopmans [Morpheus]; ip@fipa.org; modeling@fipa.org
 ~Subject: Re: [IP] Fipa Interaction Protocol Library Spec
 ~
 ~
 ~Hello Gabriel and all,
 ~
 ~"G Hopmans [Morpheus]" wrote:
 ~
 ~> Well I don't propose something new, it is more updating. Updating 
 ~> Chapter 3 with the alternatives of how to represent Interaction 
 ~> Protocols will do.
 ~>
 ~> When? Well if the FIPA FAB has no other things (then those 
 ~in chapter
 ~> 3)
 ~> I would say as soon as possible because it is 'strange' to 
 ~have FIPA 
 ~> Interaction Protocol specifications without any 
 ~introduction what it 
 ~> is, anything that introduces the IP-library or
 ~> what to do with it.
 ~>
 ~> How? Writing a small summary about the alternatives (for 
 ~representing
 ~> Ips)
 ~
 ~A small summary gee! By alternatives, you mean every 
 ~(in)formal description techniques to represent IPs, that is 
 ~not a small summary, we have at least ten different FDT for 
 ~this purpose even if some are quite confidential

Ok, then I just mean a small summary about the interaction diagrams and
then in the text referring to references for the complete work (AUML
website, etc..)

[..]
 ~> in more detail. But if ExectutionOccurrences are better I would pay 
 ~> more attention to it in the (working draft of the) specification.
 ~
 ~That's exactly what we propose with actions in interaction 
 ~diagrams, the ability to anchor some actions based on 
 ~receiving messages, see the specification, if an agent 
 ~receives an inform message, the associated action is: update 
 ~belief with this new information.

Ok, will read more about that

 ~> Now my comments to the Interaction Diagram working Draft: First of 
 ~> all, in the MS-word version on the AUML website the dates in the 
 ~> Footer are still on the date of the older version
 ~
 ~Argh, I think you read the previous version

Nope, see my next comment (previous version and deleted sentence in next
one)

 ~> In the previous version there was a line (if was the first 
 ~sentence): 
 ~> "even if it is not mandatory, it is preferable that 
 ~protocol names are
 ~>
 ~> different over the set of protocols, in order to 
 ~distinguish them each
 ~>
 ~> other"
 ~> Jim didn't understand this line and is deleted now. But I think I 
 ~> understand the sentence if it is changed to:
 ~>
 ~>  "even if it is not mandatory, it is preferable that protocol names 
 ~> are different over the available set of FIPA Interaction 
 ~Protocols, in
 ~> order
 ~> to distinguish them from each other"
 ~> I think that when people would like to design their own new FIPA
 ~> Interaction Protocols they can come up with their own names and some
 ~> protocols can be variations of existing ones.
 ~
 ~I don't understand your point, if I remember my FIPA lessons, 
 ~it is said that adopting the FIPA names means that we adopt 
 ~the semantics attached to it, as a consequence if designers 
 ~want to modify even a little bit a FIPA protocol, they have 
 ~to change the name, thus we don't have name problems.

Ok, and thus "if designers want to modify a protocol a bit they have to
change names" means that: "it is preferable that protocol names are
different over the available set of FIPA Interaction Protocols, in order
to distinguish them from each other" makes sense!

 ~
 ~> Section 2.3 Messages
 ~> The next sentence: There is no formalization to depict 
 ~message content
 ~>
 ~> and depends greatly on the agent communication language used. Why ? 
 ~> Don't we all use FIPA ACL?
 ~
 ~Even if this is a standardization for FIPA, I don't think it 
 ~is a good idea to lock the description with a specific 
 ~content format, if you want I can use SL0

Ok, we are talking about the content language and not FIPA ACL in
general.
Thus the sentence should be:
"There is no formalization to depict message content and depends greatly
on the content language."

[..]

Cheers,

Gabriel