[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion
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.
At 08:21 ã 12/06/2003, James Odell wrote:
>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?
>Modeling mailing list