Re: Tool class (Long... *real* Long)

[Ken Cline]

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

>  >     - An agent is an extension of object such that: 
>  >          - it "exists" in some "context" (i.e. its
>  >            world),
>
> OK.  The "'exists' in some 'context'" doesn't really help
> me.  But, if you mean to say something like:
>
>   - object => passive encapsulation of data and function
>   - agent  => active encapsulation of data, function, and motive
>   - tool   => reactive encapsulation of data and function with
>               dynamically defined motive
> 
> then I might understand it.  But, without specifying the motivation
> (or, to be a politically correct alifer, allowing the motivation to
> emerge [grin]), there doesn't seem to be much difference between a
> tool and an object.  And if this is the type of scheme you have in
> mind, then the word "pawn" might be more reflective of the role this
> type of thing plays.

Yeah, your right, there isn't much difference at all and
"pawn" is probably a good term for it.  A significant part
of the Tool concept (as I had originally perceived it),
perhaps the most significant, was the external control
aspect => "pawn"; external to the tool, that is.

"exists"... "context"... Not going to let me get away with
those ill-defined concepts, huh?  How about "context" =
"sauce"?

I guess I just don't have a good answer to "What is a
context?" except that it is some environment, external to
the agent, that affects the agent's behavior.


> I'd like to open up the can of worms to the group and ask you guys,
> "What is an agent?"  There's a guy here at the institute who wants to
> define agents as 'entities that act on their own behalf' or somesuch.
> That seems to add a further restriction on the definition by requiring
> that an active object be self-serving before we can call it an agent.
> In ethical theory, they have a similar extended requirement that says
> to be a "moral agent," one has to have an "interest" in the outcome of
> any transaction or process.  Of course, this doesn't mean that "just
> plain agents" who don't have an "interest" are not agents... but,
> "moral agents" are the only operative agents in ethics.

I suppose I might object [pardon the pun] to the "own" part.
I usually think of agents acting on *someone's* behalf, but
not necessarily their own.

> It might be nice to have a common "Swarm-style agent" defined so that
> we can know what we're talking about.

I agree.  (Much easier said than done, though.)

>  > I'm not sure where exactly I suggest to put the "Tool" class
>  > in the Swarm class structure.  Perhaps it would subclass
>  > SwarmObject.  (Maybe I should call it SwarmTool?)
> 
> Actually, what you're doing, Ken, is defining an entire library.  I
> suggest that Ken start a tools library! [grin] Then we can have all
> different kinds of tools in that library.

Coding by nomination?  Gee, thanks.


Ken.


_________________________________________________________
Ken Cline                             address@hidden
SAIC                                 VOICE (410) 571-0413
Annapolis, MD                          FAX (301) 261-8427