[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion

Dr. Hong Zhu hzhu@brookes.ac.uk
Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:07:01 +0100

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Odell" <email@jamesodell.com>
To: "ModelingTC" <modeling@fipa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion

> On 6/23/03 6:11 PM, "Dr. Hong Zhu" indited:
> > Here are some rough ideas in the form what should stay in the core.
> > (1) Classes (of objects) are to be static classifications of objects;
> > (2) Classes are to be single classifications of objects;
> > (3) Objects are all passive.
> > Are these acceptable? Please also add to this list for what you think a
> > OO model should have.
> Interesting proposition.  UML 2.0 already has active objects and dynamic
> classification.  So, I'm not sure that pulling these things out would
> us to reach "core UML."   These things are part of the core of UML 2.0.
> Furthermore, they are the kinds of thing we need for agents.  So, why
> them out?

It seems that you have already had a 'core UML 2.0', while I am trying to
figure out what people in this mailing list would define the core.

> Perhaps -- as Stephen Cranefield points out -- "we should start developing
> metamodel in which the agent type metaclass *is* a new subclass of
> Classifier.  If we later discover that it really can fit under Class then
> can refactor the metamodel. "  This would get us away from the OO bashing:
> it get on to the task of figuring out what we do want, instead of what we
> don't want.  IMO, this is a reasonable strategy at this point.

This is exactily what I have been doing. Please refer to my meta-model
although it is incomplete, yet. I am working on the associations.

> Anyone else besides Stephen, Paola, Giovanni , and I?  Or, to be balanced:
> anybody with an alternate proposal for moving ahead for now?
> -Jim
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling