[Modeling] RE: [IP] Fipa Interaction Protocol Library Spec
G Hopmans [Morpheus]
Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:26:44 +0200
Hello Marc-Philippe and all,
I used the correct version of the working draft. My point about the
footer and the date is not relevant. I suppose I better drank some
coffee on my Saturday morning before answering :)
~From: M.P.Huget@csc.liv.ac.uk [mailto:M.P.Huget@csc.liv.ac.uk]
~Sent: maandag 2 juni 2003 10:37
~To: G Hopmans [Morpheus]; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
~Subject: Re: [IP] Fipa Interaction Protocol Library Spec
~Hello Gabriel and all,
~"G Hopmans [Morpheus]" wrote:
~> Well I don't propose something new, it is more updating. Updating
~> Chapter 3 with the alternatives of how to represent Interaction
~> Protocols will do.
~> When? Well if the FIPA FAB has no other things (then those
~> I would say as soon as possible because it is 'strange' to
~> Interaction Protocol specifications without any
~introduction what it
~> is, anything that introduces the IP-library or
~> what to do with it.
~> How? Writing a small summary about the alternatives (for
~A small summary gee! By alternatives, you mean every
~(in)formal description techniques to represent IPs, that is
~not a small summary, we have at least ten different FDT for
~this purpose even if some are quite confidential
Ok, then I just mean a small summary about the interaction diagrams and
then in the text referring to references for the complete work (AUML
~> in more detail. But if ExectutionOccurrences are better I would pay
~> more attention to it in the (working draft of the) specification.
~That's exactly what we propose with actions in interaction
~diagrams, the ability to anchor some actions based on
~receiving messages, see the specification, if an agent
~receives an inform message, the associated action is: update
~belief with this new information.
Ok, will read more about that
~> Now my comments to the Interaction Diagram working Draft: First of
~> all, in the MS-word version on the AUML website the dates in the
~> Footer are still on the date of the older version
~Argh, I think you read the previous version
Nope, see my next comment (previous version and deleted sentence in next
~> In the previous version there was a line (if was the first
~> "even if it is not mandatory, it is preferable that
~protocol names are
~> different over the set of protocols, in order to
~distinguish them each
~> Jim didn't understand this line and is deleted now. But I think I
~> understand the sentence if it is changed to:
~> "even if it is not mandatory, it is preferable that protocol names
~> are different over the available set of FIPA Interaction
~> to distinguish them from each other"
~> I think that when people would like to design their own new FIPA
~> Interaction Protocols they can come up with their own names and some
~> protocols can be variations of existing ones.
~I don't understand your point, if I remember my FIPA lessons,
~it is said that adopting the FIPA names means that we adopt
~the semantics attached to it, as a consequence if designers
~want to modify even a little bit a FIPA protocol, they have
~to change the name, thus we don't have name problems.
Ok, and thus "if designers want to modify a protocol a bit they have to
change names" means that: "it is preferable that protocol names are
different over the available set of FIPA Interaction Protocols, in order
to distinguish them from each other" makes sense!
~> Section 2.3 Messages
~> The next sentence: There is no formalization to depict
~> and depends greatly on the agent communication language used. Why ?
~> Don't we all use FIPA ACL?
~Even if this is a standardization for FIPA, I don't think it
~is a good idea to lock the description with a specific
~content format, if you want I can use SL0
Ok, we are talking about the content language and not FIPA ACL in
Thus the sentence should be:
"There is no formalization to depict message content and depends greatly
on the content language."