[Modeling] comments on AUML diagrams

sehl mellouli sehl.mellouli@ift.ulaval.ca
Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:11:08 -0400

Dear All,
I think that at the same time that we define AUML diagrams, we need to 
think about the implementation issue (how to define a higher layer 
language to develop MAS easily). This language has to be defined based 
on MAS concepts: BDI, roles, agent, social relationships, cooperation, 
communication, etc...

For example, objects in OO implementation, cooperate by procedure or 
function call. But cooperation concept in MAS is more than a procedure 
or a function call. In agent cooperation, many elements intervene such 
as the agents beliefs or plans. So, it is important to porpose, for a 
designer, a way to implement cooperation (this must be proposed by AUML).

IMO, agent aspects have to be considered in designing and implementing MAS.

Best Regards,

James Odell wrote:
> Dear Mellouli,
> Could you provide more detail on you opinions?
> Perhaps, you could also contribute some of your own ideas and papers -- or
> write chapters for AUML specifications even now.
> Also, you say wish (as we do)  "solutions that can be mapped to code
> easily."  Can you give us more detail?  (Particularly, when there are
> members of the AUML team that are now transforming AUML diagrams to code.)
> At this point, we need participants that will provide tangible ideas and
> contributions that can be turned into specifications.  We hope that you will
> help in this manner.
> Regards,
> Jim Odell
> On 4/11/03 6:14 PM, "sehl mellouli" indited:
>>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

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