[Modeling] comments on AUML diagrams

sehl mellouli sehl.mellouli@ift.ulaval.ca
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:14:15 -0400

Dear All,
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.

Best regards,

Mellouli Sehl
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