[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class

Giovanni Rimassa rimassa@ce.unipr.it
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:51:28 +0200


--------------070702010501080906070100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wagner, G.R. wrote:

>>please find attached a short document (four pages) where Paola and I 
>>have described and motivated our proposal for modeling agent classes.
>>
>
>I think there is a conceptual problem with your approach. 
>
>Yes, we all agree that agents are not "objects", but we have to
>be careful with the term "object". In the UML, everything in the 
>world is an "object", including agents. This means that there are 
>two ways how to distinguish agents and objects (corresponding 
>to two different terminologies):
>
Gerd,
you seem competent to me, but also a little careless. On what ground do 
you claim that
'In the UML everything in the world is an object'? You should refer to 
precise sections of
an official UML document (my favorite one is UML 2.0 Superstructure, 
ad/2003-03-02)
to support your view.

That said, I've been careless, too, in citing 'object' only to discover 
that though the word 'object' with
a lowercase 'o' is widely used throughout the document, there doesn't 
appear to be an 'Object' with an
uppercase 'O' that is an instance of a 'Class' with a capital 'C'. Can 
anybody help me? Jim, do you know
whether 'Object' is defined somewhere in UML 2.0?

I used 'object' to mean 'an instance of a class', inspired by the 
definition of a Class at page 63 of the UML 2.0 Superstructure:
    "A class describes a set of objects that share the same 
specifications of features, constraints, and semantics"

So, I think that by replacing the word 'object' with the sentence 
'InstanceSpecification such that its classifier is a Class', my
previous reasoning still holds and is now fully defined and compliant 
with UML 2.0 metamodel.


I'm reporting here where are in the UML 2.0 Superstructure the various 
definitions of the concepts I used
in the previous paragraph.

Classifier: page 56
InstanceSpecification: page 34
InstanceSpecification-Classifier association: page 35

>
>1) The UML:object concept subsumes non-agentive entities
>(your "objects") and agents, so
>
>     UML:objects = "AUML:objects" + agents
>
>
>2) In AORML, there are <<object>> and <<agent>> class stereotypes,
>so
>     UML:objects = AORML:entities 
>                             = AORML:objects + AORML:agents +  AORML:events + ...
>
Does your AORML language take into account UML 1.4 or also UML 2.0? If 
you consider UML 2.0,
it seems to me that AORML:entities are UML2.0:InstanceSpecifiers...

>Your approach is based on the misunderstanding that AUML:objetcs =
>UML:objects. But UML:objects do not correspond to AUML:objects, 
>but rather to AUML:entities (like in AORML).
>
Again, I think you should point at where in an official UML document of 
your choice, the above equation is stated.

Bye,

    Giovanni

>
>-Gerd
>
>  
>
>_______________________________________________
>Modeling mailing list
>Modeling@www.fipa.org
>http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling
>


-- 
	         Giovanni Rimassa
     Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione
         Universita` di Parma - Parma (ITALY)
    Phone: +39 0521 905712 -  Fax: +39 0521 905723



--------------070702010501080906070100
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
Wagner, G.R. wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:AA2E843B3FC96349BF60350202650BE9257745@tmex1.tm.tue.nl">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">please find attached a short document (four pages) where Paola and I <br>have described and motivated our proposal for modeling agent classes.<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>I think there is a conceptual problem with your approach. <br><br>Yes, we all agree that agents are not "objects", but we have to<br>be careful with the term "object". In the UML, everything in the <br>world is an "object", including agents. This means that there are <br>two ways how to distinguish agents and objects (corresponding <br>to two different terminologies):<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
Gerd,<br>
you seem competent to me, but also a little careless. On what ground do you
claim that<br>
'In the UML everything in the world is an object'? You should refer to precise
sections of<br>
an official UML document (my favorite one is UML 2.0 Superstructure, ad/2003-03-02)<br>
to support your view.<br>
    <br>
That said, I've been careless, too, in citing 'object' only to discover that
though the word 'object' with<br>
a lowercase 'o' is widely used throughout the document, there doesn't appear
to be an 'Object' with an<br>
uppercase 'O' that is an instance of a 'Class' with a capital 'C'. Can anybody
help me? Jim, do you know<br>
whether 'Object' is defined somewhere in UML 2.0?<br>
    <br>
I used 'object' to mean 'an instance of a class', inspired by the definition
of a Class at page 63 of the UML 2.0 Superstructure:<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "A class describes a set of objects that share the same specifications
of features, constraints, and semantics"<br>
    <br>
So, I think that by replacing the word 'object' with the sentence 'InstanceSpecification
such that its classifier is a Class', my<br>
previous reasoning still holds and is now fully defined and compliant with
UML 2.0 metamodel.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
I'm reporting here where are in the UML 2.0 Superstructure the various definitions
of the concepts I used<br>
in the previous paragraph.<br>
    <br>
Classifier: page 56<br>
InstanceSpecification: page 34<br>
InstanceSpecification-Classifier association: page 35<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:AA2E843B3FC96349BF60350202650BE9257745@tmex1.tm.tue.nl">
      <pre wrap=""><br>1) The UML:object concept subsumes non-agentive entities<br>(your "objects") and agents, so<br><br>     UML:objects = "AUML:objects" + agents<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:AA2E843B3FC96349BF60350202650BE9257745@tmex1.tm.tue.nl">
        <pre wrap=""><br>2) In AORML, there are &lt;&lt;object&gt;&gt; and &lt;&lt;agent&gt;&gt; class stereotypes,<br>so<br>     UML:objects = AORML:entities <br>                             = AORML:objects + AORML:agents +  AORML:events + ...<br><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
Does your AORML language take into account UML 1.4 or also UML 2.0? If you
consider UML 2.0,<br>
it seems to me that AORML:entities are UML2.0:InstanceSpecifiers...<br>
        <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:AA2E843B3FC96349BF60350202650BE9257745@tmex1.tm.tue.nl">
          <pre wrap="">Your approach is based on the misunderstanding that AUML:objetcs =<br>UML:objects. But UML:objects do not correspond to AUML:objects, <br>but rather to AUML:entities (like in AORML).<br></pre>
          </blockquote>
Again, I think you should point at where in an official UML document of your
choice, the above equation is stated.<br>
          <br>
Bye,<br>
          <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Giovanni<br>
          <br>
          <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:AA2E843B3FC96349BF60350202650BE9257745@tmex1.tm.tue.nl">
            <pre wrap=""><br>-Gerd<br><br>  <br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Modeling mailing list<br><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Modeling@www.fipa.org">Modeling@www.fipa.org</a><br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling">http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling</a><br><br></pre>
            </blockquote>
            <br>
            <br>
            <pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- <br>	         Giovanni Rimassa<br>     Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione<br>         Universita` di Parma - Parma (ITALY)<br>    Phone: +39 0521 905712 -  Fax: +39 0521 905723<br><br></pre>
            <br>
            </body>
            </html>

--------------070702010501080906070100--