[Modeling] AIP and actions

Radovan Cervenka rce@whitestein.com
Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:18:59 +0200

Marc-Philippe, Renato, all,

your question is relatively old and there already exist some solutions. 
Let's focus on UML 2.0 which gives us the following possibilities:

1. Use ProtocolStateMachines in a similar way how Renato said. You can 
e.g. attach one ProtocolStateMachine to each Lifeline (or to its type) 
from AIP and you can trigger any behavior from it (including execution 
of Activity). Another option is to draw only ProtocolStateMachines 
without Interactions, but this is less descriptive (of course depends on 
  complexity of the problem you model and also on your modeling style).

2. Use ExecutionOccurrence in a form of Action. UML says: "We may also 
represent an ExecutionOccurrence as Actions are represented in Activity 
ExecutionOccurrences that refer to atomic actions such as reading 
attributes of a Signal (conveyed by the Message), the Action symbol may 
be associated with the reception EventOccurrence with a line in order to 
emphasize that the whole Action is associated with only one 
EventOccurrence (and start and finish associations refer the very same

We practically use the both possibilities. In general: if behavior of a 
Lifeline is complicated we prefer option 1, and if it is trivial, we 
prefer option 2.


Renato Levy wrote:
> Marc-Philippe,
> In our tool (DIVA) we have linked AIPs with state diagrams, activity 
> diagrams are not used. Each state diagrams represent a "machine" for one 
> role. There is way more detail to it, if you are interested.
> At 01:23 PM 8/16/2004 +0200, Marc-Philippe Huget wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>> I have several times the same question during AAMAS: we have AIP but 
>> what about actions associated to the AIP? How to represent them? I 
>> proposed in the first draft to decorate the AIP with actions but this 
>> is certainly too simple. I think we need to consider this question and 
>> find an answer to everybody who wants to design and **implement** AIPs.
>> First idea: linking Interaction diagrams to Activity diagrams: each 
>> action in Interaction diagrams is related to a "real" implementation 
>> in activity diagrams. What's your opinion?
>> Cheers,
>> Marc-Philippe
>> -- 
>> *****************************************************
>> Marc-Philippe HUGET, PhD           MAGMA-INPG/Leibniz
>> Laboratoire Leibniz
>> 46, Avenue Felix Viallet
>> Email:Marc-Philippe.Huget@imag.fr
>> *****************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> Modeling mailing list
>> Modeling@www.fipa.org
>> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling
> Renato Levy
> Principal Scientist
> Intelligent Automation, Inc.
> phone: +1 (301) 294-5241
> fax:      +1 (301) 294-5201
> http://www.i-a-i.com
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling

Radovan Cervenka | rce@whitestein.com
Whitestein Technologies | www.whitestein.com
Panenska 28 | SK-81103 Bratislava | Slovak Republic
Tel +421(2)5443-5502 | Fax +421(2)5443-5512
If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
you are not authorized to make any use of it;
please delete it and notify us by return email.
Thank you.