[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion

Hossam Allam hallam@cedare.org.eg
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:56:38 +0300


Dear Mr. Odell

I would go to the option of having Class as the supertype of Agent Class. 
The definition of  Class will need to be changed to "A Class is a 
description of a set of Objects and Agents that share ............". AUML 
will have passive class, active class, and agent class.

Regards

Hossam

At 08:21  12/06/2003, James Odell wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>On 6/12/03 9:54 AM, "Dr. Hong Zhu" indited:
> > 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?
>
>Yes, that makes better sense.
>
>So  everybody, are we absolutely sure that Class cannot be used for Agents?
>I know how that Giovanni and Paola think that objects are evil :-)  --
>thanks to their interesting paper.  But, what about the rest of you?  Are
>*any* the features of Class unusable for agents?   If so, which ones?  If
>there are not anyt, then perhaps Class can be the supertype of AgentClass;
>otherwise, we should use Classifier as the supertype?
>
>Perhaps we should get a sense from those Modeling TC members that feel this
>is important.  Gerd? Hong? Renato? Misty?  Marc-Philippe?  Bernard?
>Radovan?  Anyone else?
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jim
>
>_______________________________________________
>Modeling mailing list
>Modeling@www.fipa.org
>http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling