[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class

[Dr. Hong Zhu]

Hi,

Should we state that

AUML members = UML object + AUML agents + <other instance-level stuff> ?

That is, the left hand-side should be AUML rather than UML.

Am I right?

Best regards,
Hong



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Odell" <email@jamesodell.com>
To: "ModelingTC" <modeling@fipa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class


> Giovanni,
>
> Good points.  I was using the property, or association end, name.  The end
> name for the association from Namespace to NamedElement (Fig. 1-6) is
called
> "member".   The end name for the association from Classifier to
NamedElement
> (Fig. 1-22) is called "inherited member" -- and is constrained to be a
> subset of the Namespace "member".   This is the reason why  I was saying
> that the instances of Classifiers are members.  Does that make sense?  So,
> to glue our two approaches together, one could say that the
> InstanceSpecification property of a classifier is a member (or more
> precisely, an inheritedMember -- which is derived from the Namespace
> property of member).
>
> In this way, it could also be stated as:
> UML members = UML objects + AUML agents + <other instance-level stuff>
>
> Or as you quite rightly stated in your email:
> UML Classifiers = UML classes + AUML AgentClasses + <other type-level
stuff>
>
> Are we in violent agreement, now.  Or, do we still differ.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 6/11/03 4:59 AM, "Giovanni Rimassa" indited:
>
> >> So, on to your question: In UML 2.0, an Object is defined as an
instance of
> >> Class.  So, Classes have objects, and Classifiers have members.  So,
would
> >> it be useful to use the following, instead:
> >>        UML members = UML objects + AUML agents + UML Actors + UML
Signals +
> >> UML Activity + ....
> >>
> >
> >> Would this work?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure. It looks to me that if 'Classes have Objects' means
> > Object-instanceOf-Class, then 'Classifiers have InstanceSpecifications'.
> > Now, the definition of Classifier says 'A Classifiers is a namespace
> > whose members can include features'.
> > If I understand correctly, Classifier and Feature are in the type
> > space, whereas InstanceSpecification and Slot are in the instance
> > space (with 'in the type space' I mean that they appear on the right
> > hand side of an 'instanceOf' relationship, with 'in the instance space'
> > I mean that they appear on the left hand side of the same).
> >
> > So, I would say InstanceSpecification-instanceOf-Classifier and
> > Slot-instanceOf-Feature (actually, it is StructuralFeature, page 34)
> >
> > I couldn't find the definition of Member, but my 'natural' understanding
> > from OO languages terminology is:
> >
> >
> > class Point {
> >
> > public:
> >
> > Point(double x, double y);
> >
> > double getX();
> > double getY();
> >
> > private:
> >
> > double m_x;
> > double m_y;
> >
> > }
> >
> > };
> >
> >
> > Point p(0.12, 3.14);
> >
> >
> > In terms of the UML metamodel, 'Point' is a Class, 'p' is an Object,
> > and both 'm_x' and 'm_y' are members (and they could have features, if
> > they were of some non-primitive type).
> >
> > So, to me, 'Point has p' and 'Point has m_x' are both true but 'has'
> > means two different things.
> >
> >
> > I would rewrite the equation in the type space as follows:
> >
> >
> > UML Classifiers = UML classes + AUML AgentClasses + <other type-level
> > stuff>
> >
> > And, in the instance space:
> >
> > UML InstanceSpecifications = UML objects + AUML Agents + <other
> > instance-level stuff>
> >
> >
> > I wrote <other XXXX-level stuff> because I don't know whether Actors,
> > Activities and the like are type-level or instance-level. Moreover, I
> > don't know whether for each type-level element (read: for each subclass
> > of Classifier) there is a corresponding instance-level element (read:
> > a subclass of InstanceSpecification).
> >
> > Do you think it works now? If so, do you know whether we can write the
> > two equations completely, and with one-to-one correspondence between
> > type-level and instance-level equation parts?
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling