[Modeling] agents vs actors

[James Odell]

Hi Frits,

If I understand your definition correctly you are saying:

An agent is a technological implementation of an actor.

And by "technology" do you mean using some human-fabricated mechanism?
So, that if I were able to create a human, say Frankenstein's monster, then
that human would be an agent?  And if the human were not created with a
technology (e.g., god or evolution), then it would not be an agent?

Please don't think that I am not trying be a troublemaker here.  I am just
trying to understand the fine line.

Also, why do you think that an agent can only have one role?  Most living
creature have multiple roles.  Why should agents?


Cheers,

Jim 


On 9/22/03 11:44 AM, f.tolman scribed:

> In our research effort we distinghuish between an actor and a virtual actor.
> Our actor notion follows the UML use case idea. If both fysical and virtual
> actor are interchangeable without corrupting the system at least some
> definitions of 'intelligence' have been satisfied. Agent technology is used
> to implement this concept. Many agents may be required to create a good
> working virtual actor. Mostly one role is assigned to each agent.