Wed, 04 Jun 2003 09:10:08 +0100
Just a summary of yesterday discussion to know if everybody agrees with
2. What is an agent? Paola proposes to replace by what is an agent
class? I would like to say both even if my concern is end-users of the
specification, the question of what is an agent is a hot subject and
everybody has his own definition, it is the reason why we need to
explain what we put in "our" agent but now, if you all agree to directly
consider agent class, go for it!
3. Generic agent description" is trashed in my opinion, I find
ridiculous to write a generic agent where the only attribute is an ID.
4. Elements for agent description: kept as proposed
5. "Derived agent types", OK, I think you prefer "Template agent class",
6. "Implementation level" is trashed since apparently I am the only one
to work like that...
If I understand very well, when I will write the elements for agent
description, for instance one belief, I never write (believe agent1 (is
Melbourne sunny)) but directly the object, that's it?
Agent Applications, Research and Technology Group
Department of Computer Science
University of Liverpool
Chadwick Building, Peach Street
L69 7ZF Liverpool