Ther has been a shift in meaning of the term 'Agent' in computer science
over the last 25 years. There was a clear distinction made between
'Actors' and 'Agents'. Actors (ref Carl Hewit - early 70's) were intended
to be independently acting procedures within a computer program; they
played a part and had their own goals according to some mechanism
(originally assummed intelligent. Whereas, Agents were intended to be
procedures/programs that acted on your behalf; their goals were your goals.
Carl extended the idea of Actors to include inanimate objects (e.g. Act as
a tree, shoe etc). The Computer Science community combined the idea of
Actors with the notion of 'frames'. This combination kicked off the whole
idea of 'Objects' and hence the OO community (an error in my view).
So 'Agents' are really 'Actors'
I would like to see the original distinction put back in place; it was useful.
Tom
>I received the following referee's report last Friday:
>
>> I don't think it sheds much light on multi-agent systems. It says
>> something on social simulation but the link back to multi-agent
>> systems is very tenuous. Little attempt to link the paper to
>> terms, concepts, and literature of multi-agent systems.
>>
>
>The report was for the UK workshop on MultiAgent Systems (UKMAS). The
>call for papers said that papers which had been presented at ICMAS ECAI
>and similar would be especially welcome. So I sent my MABS98 paper,
>"Social Simulation and Reality: Three Approaches". (the pre-print
>version is at http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/cpmrep35.html). The UKMAS chair,
>Michael Fisher and, through Michael, the author of the above report (who
>remains anonymous) have agreed to its circulation to the simsoc list in
>order to enable me clearlyly to raise the issue of the relationship
>between their approach to MAS and the broader social simulation
>approach.
>
>It has seemed for some time that certain elements in the computer
>science end of the MAS community have wanted to preserve a kind of
>purity in the use of phrases like agent architecture or agent systems.
>
>Perhaps this is appropriate. Perhaps the use of the agent concept in
>computer science is simply different from the concept as used in social
>simulation. But there are two reasons for believing there to be a
>substantial degree of elision between the two.
>
>The first reason is that shared techniques exist and are frequently
>published in both the conventional MAS and the social simulation
>literature. The main technique shared in this way is the representation
>of agents as BDI logics. I wonder if, for computer scientists, this is
>agent modelling as engineering: in a given set of conditions a software
>agent programmed in a particular way will always respond reliably and
>predictably. However, authors such as Castelfrancchi, Conte and their
>colleagues have used essentially the same form of representation to
>investigate the conditions under which social norms will emerge. This
>seems to me to be much less like engineering and much more like social
>science.
>
>The second reason is that in such a new field of research as MAS, an
>exclusionary approach can lead not only to an unnecessarily small base
>for further development but also to the application of bad science. For
>a description of such an application of bad science and a constructive
>alternative approach, see my invited talk to the AgentLink SIG on
>intelligent information agents at
>http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/~scott/i2a/markets.html
>
>I see the quoted report at the start of this message as a challenge to
>demonstrate the power of social simulation not only as a means of
>analysing and understanding societies of humans and other primates but
>also as a source of ideas, techniques and procedures for use in the
>design and implementation of societies of software agents. Both the
>computer science and the social simulation contributors to the MAS
>literatures would be likely to benefit.
>
>Michael Fisher helpfully wrote:
>
>
>> I guess it probably reflects a particular view from MAS people -- and
>> something that you might need to convince the MAS community is
>> incorrect?
>>
>
>I don't think we **need** to convince them but I do think that we should
>try. With that one amendment, I endorse Michael's sentiment because I am
>convinced that both they (the computer science MAS community) and we
>(the social simulation MAS community) would benefit from the discussion.
>
>I wonder what other members of the list think.
>
>--
>Scott Moss telephone: +44 (0)161 247 3886
>Director fax: +44 (0)161 247 6802
>Centre for Policy Modelling
>Manchester Metropolitan University
>Aytoun Building
>Manchester M1 3GH
>UNITED KINGDOM
>
>http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/~scott
T. R. Addis
Professor of Computer Science
School of Computer Science and Mathematics
Mercantile House
Hampshire Terrace
Portsmouth,
Hampshire
PO1 2EG
Tel: (0) 1705 845141
Fax: (0) 1705 843030
Email: [log in to unmask]
Home Response:
12 Marine Court
SOUTHSEA
PO4 9QU
Tel: 01705 355721
Email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|