[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion

Dr. Hong Zhu hzhu@brookes.ac.uk
Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:15:28 +0100

I entirely agree with Stephen that we should first define what we want and
then name it accordingly. For the metamodel that I have defined for my CAMLE
and SLABS languages, which is clearly defined though not in UML
meta-meta-model, I found it is good to call it caste. I am now working
towards a definition of the metat-model in UML notation. The half finished
model distributed to this mailing list before defines 'agent class' as a sub
of classifier. From the incomplete meta-model so far, I have the feeling
that it is hard to put it as a sub of class.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Cranefield" <scranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
To: "ModelingTC" <modeling@fipa.org>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- register your opinion

> Jim Odell wrote:
> > OK, the tally is now:
> >
> > --Caste - 1 vote
> > --Agent Class or Agent Type - 5 votes
> > --Agent - 1 vote
> > --"The term agent class is 'misfortune'" - 1 vote
> > --"No idea"  - 1 vote
> I favour AgentType if we decide to use a metaclass that is a direct
> of Classifier (i.e. not a subclass of Class).  Otherwise, AgentClass would
> be appropriate.
> I also think that we should start developing a metamodel in which the
> type metaclass *is* a new subclass of Classifier.  If we later discover
> it really can fit under Class then we can refactor the metamodel.
> - Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling