[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion

[James Odell]

On 6/19/03 4:05 AM, "Dr. Hong Zhu" indited:

> The differences between the choises, IMO, is that: For choice 2, the outcome
> would be a language that is upward compatible from UML to AUML in the sense
> that any model in UML is a model of AUML. However, a model in AUML is not
> nessarily a model of UML. For choice 1, we would first defind a core part of
> UML which only supports traditional OO, and then extend it to include agent
> concepts. The core UML will be compatible with standard UML in the sense
> that a model in core UML is also a model of UML, but not the other way
> round. The core UML would be the part of standard UMlL that does not include
> non-traditional OO features. The consequence would be that a model in UML
> maybe not a model of AUML, which, I guess, many people in this mailing list
> don't like to see. However, by doing so, we might be easier to achieve the
> change of modelling philosophy by shifting the focus of modelling from
> object-orientation to agent-orientation. The above is just a vision. Sorry
> for not having much details, but I hope it can be a starting point for the
> discussion. What do you think?


The UML "profile" and "extension" mechanisms certainly support either
approach.  Choose just the structures you wish to extend by referencing them
from their UML package, and then add whatever you think appropriate 'til
your heart's content.  So, choice 1 or 2 is supportable by the current UML
mechanism.  I would imagine that AUML can easily be expressed as a profile
to UML using this approach.  But, then that's what this TC is chartered to
decide, n'est ce pas?

-Jim