[Modeling] Behavior in Interaction Diagrams
Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:20:11 -0500
1) IMO, groups of agents can be treated at agents in their own right if it
is perceived that the group interacts with other groups of individuals.
This is an important feature when considering (say) organizations
interacting. Or, if the agents is perceived an an aggregate, the same
2) IMO, methods should be able to be indicated on a sequence diagram.
Furthermore, sequence diagrams should be able to express a method
specification by by "pointing to" either another interaction diagram or
possibly an activity diagram or state chart.
On 3/13/03 10:53 AM, Marc-Philippe Huget scribed:
> Hi all,
> I just received a good question that must be considered even if I have
> my thoughts about it. The person represents agents as a set of objects:
> one for communication, one for means-end reasoning, one for scheduling,
> etc. She wants to write an interaction diagram that presents the
> exchange of messages between agents but as well, the method invocation
> between the agent as whole and the objects constituting it. The aim is
> to link messages to actions triggered by these messages. My first answer
> to the person was: actually, interaction diagrams are for messages and
> that's all, after a second thought, I think about UML 2 where we can
> have method invocations (grey rectangles on lifelines) and a recent
> discussion where AUML was criticized, yes, some people dare! ;-),
> because it is not possible to relate messages to actions.
> I would like to know your opinion and particularly if such approach must
> be added to the specifications or do I have to answer that statecharts
> and activity diagrams are done for that, I know continuations inside a
> diagram but between different diagrams of different kinds, that's
> PS Renato, I don't forget you and your recent comments but they need a
> special treatment ;-) and quick answer will be an error in this case
> Marc-Philippe Huget