[Modeling] agents vs actors
Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:18:02 -0400
If I understand your definition correctly you are saying:
An agent is a technological implementation of an actor.
And by "technology" do you mean using some human-fabricated mechanism?
So, that if I were able to create a human, say Frankenstein's monster, then
that human would be an agent? And if the human were not created with a
technology (e.g., god or evolution), then it would not be an agent?
Please don't think that I am not trying be a troublemaker here. I am just
trying to understand the fine line.
Also, why do you think that an agent can only have one role? Most living
creature have multiple roles. Why should agents?
On 9/22/03 11:44 AM, f.tolman scribed:
> In our research effort we distinghuish between an actor and a virtual actor.
> Our actor notion follows the UML use case idea. If both fysical and virtual
> actor are interchangeable without corrupting the system at least some
> definitions of 'intelligence' have been satisfied. Agent technology is used
> to implement this concept. Many agents may be required to create a good
> working virtual actor. Mostly one role is assigned to each agent.