(H)MASPlatform, (H)Agent, (H)Workspace, (H)Container,... or no (H)

[FabienGandon]

This issue is to discuss whether the ontology is to be focused on HMAS concepts that are specifically HMAS compliant or not.

For instance our discussions led us to move from Platform to MASPlatform and we could asked ourselves whether HMASPlatform should be the core concept i.e. "MAS platform that are hypermedia compliant".

So my question could be expended as:

• do we need the class Agent or HAgent or both?
• do we need the class MASPlatform or HMASPlatform or both?
• do we need the class Workspace or HWorkspace or both?
• do we need the class Container or HContainer or both?

In other word how much should we cover of MAS in general vs focus on HMAS in particular and for what purposes/scenarios?

(H)MASPlatform, (H)Agent, (H)Workspace, (H)Container,... or no (H)? that is my question :skull: :smiley:

[DrLeturc]

I think actually, we do not need HAgent for the v1 since the class Agent is enough, however I don't know for the next versions.

We though with Fabien that it would be interesting for HyperAgent to know that some agent cannot operate an hypermedia.

Thus, the definition I tried to give Monday was : "An entity that is capable of autonomous behavior and operate an hypermedia." So HAgent would be a subClassOf Agent.

However, I think it can bring an ambiguïty concerning when using Agent and HAgent. For example, I'm a human, I didn't learn to use an hypermedia, thus, I cannot be a HAgent right now and other "HyperAgent" knows that I cannot interact with them through an hypermedia. But few time later, I have learnt to operate an Hypermedia and I updated my "class" to become an HAgent. In practice, isn't a problem to change my class like that ?

For MASPlatform and HMASPlatform, I believe that JACAMO and JADE have been modified to become HMASPlatform. Initially they were not HMASPlatform and cannot operate an hypermedia. Can we imagine a relevant motivating scenario that could justify the fact that a HMASPlatform needs to use and represent a MASPlatform ?

Workspace -> +1 HWorkspace -> ? don't know. What would be the definition ? The current definition of a workspace is "A logical container of one or multiple interactions among agents and potentially artifacts. Workspaces can contain any resource in general..." it seems the current definition is what we could call an "HWorkspace". Thus, it means this is "Workspace" that should have a different definition. Which one ? Why changing the current definition which is (according to me) good ?

Then for Container / HContainer, everything would be a HContainer on the web, isn't ? But they called it a Container. I tried to give some intuition, and idea to advance the rationale but I'm not sure of what I proposed.

[maximelefrancois86]

MINES Saint-Etienne: we prefer to keep the identifiers without the 'H', and allow them to be used for modeling MAS in general.

The HMAS Core ontology supports hypermedia agents insofar as they can use it to discover where they are situated and what artifacts they can use to achieve their design objective

[maximelefrancois86]

This issue can be closed ? @andreiciortea

[FabienGandon]

Ok to drop the "H"

[andreiciortea]

+1 for the arguments expressed by @maximelefrancois86