[Modeling] comments on AUML diagrams
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:14:15 -0400
I have some comments on AUML diagrams. AUML is based on UML with some
deviation/extension on notations. Nevertheless, IMO, the difference
between AUML and UML is not only notation but also the agent concept
itself. Agents are not objects; they have another structure (mental
structure) that objects have not.
An object is described by attributes and functions, but not an agent. An
agent has its beliefs, desires and intentions (this is an agent
structure), if we consider BDI architecture. This structure can be
described by attributes and functions itself but the agent structure is
not attributes and functions.
Agents can share knowledge, can play many roles, can see their roles
changing during execution. Does a class diagram with some new
stereotypes consider these aspects? IMO, I don't tnink so.
IMO, object oriented technology is widely used because object-oriented
methodlogies propose concrete solutions, that are solutions that can be
mapped to code easily.
Looking at the AUML diagrams, are they easily mapped to code? can an
agent be developed as a class? I think no.
Developing diagrams is vital to design MAS but also we have to consider
that these diagrams will be developed later and there is a big gap
between agent theory and agent development.
I propose, in developing AUML diagrams, to consider how agent specific
aspects will be developed.
Computer Science Engineer
Information Systems Administration MBA
Computer Science Phd Student
Université Laval, Québec, P.Q, Canada
Tél: bur (418) 656-2131 (4704)
Home page: http://www.ift.ulaval.ca/~mellouli