[Modeling] Comments on the latest Interaction Diagram specification
Fri, 23 May 2003 17:15:53 +0100
Hello Misty and all,
Sorry for this silence, I was modifying the interaction diagram
specification, I can now answer to some of your questions.
Marian Nodine wrote:
> This document is definitely making good progress! I appreciate all the
> hard work that has been put into it.
> In the beginning of Section 2, there is some mixing up of the terms
> "agent" and "role" with respect to the lifelines. This document should
> make it crystal clear what the head of those lifelines is, which is a
Point taken, hope I fixed it well.
> On page 10, I reiterate my comment that I think the snippet box at the
> top of the protocol frame is very overloaded. It contains the "sd
> <protocol name>", the parameters (with no names?) and the language and
> ontology variables. Could you please sort this out, and perhaps
> propose some alternative to this overloading?
I put outside parameters, you are right, if we have numerous parameters that
will be too cumbersome
> On page 14, with respect to role cardinalities, there is also the
> issue of relative cardinalities. For example, what if you want the
> participants to be "all of the UN Security Council"? What about quorum
> cardinalities, such as ">50% of the committee"?.
I add the notion of condition for message and role cardinality
> On page 17, I reiterate that I do not like detours. They get
> especially difficult if the detour involves some alternatives, as I am
> not sure how to draw the lifelines in that case. Rather, I would
> prefer to see the event that caused the "detour" to instead cause the
> receiver to role switch to another role (e.g., "winner". Thus, for
> example, in an auction there would be two alternatives in announcing
> the result. The first alternative would have the seller informing the
> participant that it is the winner, and the winner changing roles to
> the "Winner" role, where it can do such things as arrange for
> payment. The second alternative would have the seller informing the
> participant that it is the loser, in which case the participant's
> lifeline would stop and the interaction would end.
That is certainly due to Word document track changes since this element no
longer exists in the specification
> On page 18, I have similar issues with message cardinality that I did
> with role cardinality. What about ">2/3 of the receivers"? "All of the
> entities in the receiving role except for those not also in role xyz"?
> I can definitely see times where this type of cardinality restriction
> would be useful.
> There is an issue in both Figures 21 and 24, related to these nested
> conversations. How do the roles in the nested interactions relate to
> the roles in the outer interaction? For example, in Figure 21, the
> Payment interaction may have two roles: payer and payee. How do these
> map to the customer and server of the outer conversation? In Figure
> 24, the Interaction Overview diagram, the overview does not have a
> notion of roles yet; however, they will be needed to show how the
> agents progress from role to role in the interactions shown in the
Point taken on role dynamics.
Agent Applications, Research and Technology Group
Department of Computer Science
University of Liverpool
Chadwick Building, Peach Street
L69 7ZF Liverpool