[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- problem with operations:

[Dr. Hong Zhu]

Hi, Gerd,

I am not understand how UML's way of defining semantics and syntax. Could
you please tell me how to turn this feature off when the semantics are
written in the definition of 'class'?

Second, restrict the caller to the object itself does not solve all the
problems. Method called is the only means of communication between objects.
If no call to other objects' methods, how to communication with each other?
My solution is to replace operations with something called 'actions' for
agents. When an action is executed, it generates an event, which can be
observed by other agents. There is also a lot semantics involved.

Hong



----- Original Message -----
From: Wagner, G.R. <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
To: Dr. Hong Zhu <hzhu@brookes.ac.uk>; ModelingTC <modeling@fipa.org>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 06:56
Subject: RE: [Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- problem with operations:


> There seem to be two possible solutions for your problem with operations:
>
> 1) turn off this feature (of classes having operations that can be
> called) in a AUML Profile for domain/analysis modeling
>
> 2) restrict the allowed callers of the operation to self (by means
> of suitable constraints defined for the AUML Profile).
>
> Does this help?
>
> -Gerd
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Hong Zhu
> To: ModelingTC
> Sent: 23.06.2003 10:21
> Subject: Re: [Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion
>
> Let's assume that it can be done this way, then, we must consider agents
> are
> special case of objects, because the semantics of class is defined as
> follows. (the following is taken from Jim's email about UML's definition
> of
> class)
> "-Semantics
> The purpose of a class is to specify a classification of objects and to
> specify the features that characterize the structure and behavior of
> those
> objects."
>
> The question is, then, "Can agents be objects?" I doubt about it,
> because
> the semantics of object has this features defined as a part of UML
> class'
> semantics: (also taken from Jim's email)
> "Operations of a class can be invoked on an object, given a particular
> set
> of substitutions for the parameters of the operation." Does this give
> object
> the freedon to refuse invocation of its operation? I think, a
> characteristics of agents is that "agent can say no to operation
> invocation". This is also from Jim's work.
>
> Hong
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Odell" <email@jamesodell.com>
> To: "ModelingTC" <modeling@fipa.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion
>
>
> > On 6/20/03 7:45 AM, "Dr. Hong Zhu" indited:
> >
> > >> When you simply use the word Agent as the class name of the class
> Agent
> > >> you can produce a meta model in UML. Using UML as the modelling
> > >> language does not mean that the behaviour of agents necessarily has
> been
> > >> limited to OO.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't think the semantic definition of UML can be interpreted that
> way.
> >
> > And, I am not so sure that it cannot be.  I guess it's time for us all
> to
> > demonstrate it one way or another.
> >
> > -Jim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Modeling mailing list
> > Modeling@www.fipa.org
> > http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling