[Modeling] Re: Behavior in Interaction Diagrams

[Stephen Cranefield]

I wrote:
> [The requirement to link messages with agent actions] could
>possibly be dealt with by making connections between different kinds
>of AUML diagram, but I think it would be better if there were a way
>to define an interaction protocol and the connection between messages
>and actions in a single diagram.

Renato Levy <rlevy@i-a-i.com> replied
> I respectfully disagree, and personally favor a set of diagrams,
> perhaps with hyper links betweeen each other. I very afraid of putting
> too much detail in one diagram, and loose its main meanning in the
> bulkness of the notation.

I think we need the flexibility to do it both ways.  When the diagrams
are created as part of a design process for a *particular* system,
then there will be many diagrams created, and it is a good idea to
keep each one focussed on a particular view of the system.  However,
that is not the only use for interaction diagrams.  In open agent
societies it is important to be able to publish the specification of
interaction protocols.  I don't think that an interaction protocol is
completely defined without some indication of what (generic) action
the agents are intended to do when each message arrives.  This is not
an implementation issue - it is part of the specification of the
protocol.  I think it would be useful to be able to include this
information directly on the interaction diagram because I don't like
the idea of having to publish a set of inter-related diagrams in order
to specify a protocol.

- Stephen

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Cranefield                       
Department of Information Science 
University of Otago                               Phone: 64 3 479 8083
PO Box 56, Dunedin                                Fax:   64 3 479 8311
New Zealand                E-mail: scranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz
----------------------------------------------------------------------