[Modeling] (no subject)
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:11:59 -0500
I respectfully disagree, and personally favor a set of diagrams, perhaps
with hyper links betweeen each other. I very afraid of putting too much
detail in one diagram, and loose its main meanning in the bulkness of the
>Marc-Philippe Huget wrote:
> > 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.
>I agree that it is important to be able to do this, although it
>depends on what use is being made of the interaction diagram. If the
>diagram is being used as an external representation of the system
>(e.g. to aid debugging, as suggested in the AAMAS 2002 paper by
>Poutakidis et al., http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/544862.544966), then the
>connection of messages to actions doesn't seem to be required.
>However, if the diagram is intended to be a fully detailed
>specification of an interaction protocol then it seems important to
>indicate what information is contained within the message and what it
>is that the agent should do with that information (e.g make a
>particular type of decision). I have a paper discussing this issue at
>http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-66/oas02-16.pdf, although it uses Petri net
>notation, not AUML.
>This requirement could possibly be dealt with by making connections
>between different kinds of AUML diagram, but I think it would be
>better if there were a way to define an interaction protocol and the
>connection between messages and actions in a single diagram.
Intelligent Automation, Inc.
7519 Standish Place, ste 200
Rockville, MD 20855