[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion

[f.tolman]

Hi Jim,

Sorry for the terminology. I thought that you used the agent concept to
transform embedded systems and just plain hardware into autonomous and
interactive 'somethings'. And also that you were looking into conceptual
modelling to see how you can formally describe the agent-based behavioural
aspects.

As to the word íntelligence' I agree that the concept is vague. I normally
use it in a broad sense, not limited to human intelligence, to include
things like self knowledge, identity, proactiveness, and more. As an example
we work on intelligent documents that know their own content, their
creators, their family with whome they communicate, etc. But this is
probably irrelevant for our purpose here in this group.

Would you answer the question about the most important aspects that we need
to express with: autonomy and interactiveness?

Regards

Frits


 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Odell" <email@jamesodell.com>
To: "ModelingTC" <modeling@fipa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion


> Frits,
>
> Your going to run into a bit of opposition with two of your stances:
>
> 1) Agents are not restricted to being a ³piece of software.²  This leaves
> out a whole group of people who are developing agent-based systems with
> embedded systems and just plain hardware.
>
> 2) Many of us are not developing agent-based systems with "an intelligent
> something."   Ants are not intelligent, but have been very successful for
a
> very long time -- and there are many systems that are being built with a
> swarm-based approach.  Also, after two decades, AI still hasn't been able
to
> define "intelligence."  So, autonomous, interactive entities are what many
> of us are building for use in commercial systems today.  I have nothing
> against "intelligence", but please don't exclude my agent systems so
> swiftly.
>
>
> -Jim
>
> On 6/17/03 4:14 PM, "f.tolman" indited:
>
> > Dear Collegues
> >
> > This working group is considering agent-based modelling technology,
probably
> > including the interaction between agent based and object based
modelling.
> > However, objects are no agents. Indeed everything in this world can be
> > considered to be an object in the OO sense of the word.
But...............the
> > sensible question is: is that useful? Not, in my opinion, in agent-based
> > modelling. At least not as a starting point. An agent is a metaphor for
a
> > piece of software that mimicks an intelligent something (real or
virtual), not
> > a dumb object. What we need is a modelling paradigm that can be used to
> > clearly express the things that our intelligent beings will be able to
do. The
> > question is: in all its variety agents seem to have a common nature. Can
> > anybody list and group the most important things that we all need to
express
> > (actions, behaviours, family?, ???) And do we have to distinguish
between
> > concept design and implementation design (for code generation)?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Frits
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling