jade-develop mailing list archive: about the representation of

Subject: about the representation of some jade AbsObjects
From: beiting zhu (ABZ005@motorola.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 14:49:44 MET DST

When I test the FIPA SL expression with SLCodec in Jade 2.6, I found
something strange.

Case 1: (without ontology)
I typed SL expression as: ((Father_Of father ?x )), and I got the decoding
result is an AbsPredicate, it is presented as: (Father_Of :_JADE.UNNAMED1
(Variable :Name x) :_JADE.UNNAMED0 father)). Then I encode this AbsPredicate
back to a SL expression, and I got: ((Father_Of ?x father) ). Because the
order of the AbsTerms inside this AbsPredicate has been conversed.
I have also tested AbsConcept and AbsAgentAction, the results are same. I
think maybe because they inherit some classes from
jade.content.abs.AbsObjectImpl.

Case 2: (with ontology)
I have tested the same example, but with the PeopleOntology in the package
"examples.content.ontology". And I got the decoding result as an
AbsPredicate:(Father_Of :FATHER father :CHILDREN (Variable :Name x)). Then I
encode this this AbsPredicate back to a SL expression, and I got:
((Father_Of father ?x) ). We can see here the order is kept, because the
schema "Father_Of" is defined in this way.

Since in Jade 2.5, I have not met this problem. With or without ontology,
the composition of the AbsObjects is always same. So I want to know :
1. why Jade 2.6 has changed this point?
2. if it is a bug (since sometimes we create the agents without ontology, so
in this way the AbsObjects can not present the agent's internal knowledge,
and consequently influence the agent's communication), have you already
done some thing for that?

When I test the FIPA SL expression with SLCodec in Jade 2.6, I found something strange.

I typed SL expression as: ((Father_Of father ?x )), and I got the decoding result is an AbsPredicate, it is presented as: (Father_Of :_JADE.UNNAMED1 (Variable :Name x) :_JADE.UNNAMED0 father)). Then I encode this AbsPredicate back to a SL expression, and I got: ((Father_Of ?x father) ). Because the order of the AbsTerms inside this AbsPredicate has been conversed.

I have also tested AbsConcept and AbsAgentAction, the results are same. I think maybe because they inherit some classes from jade.content.abs.AbsObjectImpl.

I have tested the same example, but with the PeopleOntology in the package "examples.content.ontology". And I got the decoding result as an AbsPredicate:(Father_Of :FATHER father :CHILDREN (Variable :Name x)). Then I encode this this AbsPredicate back to a SL expression, and I got: ((Father_Of father ?x) ). We can see here the order is kept, because the schema "Father_Of" is defined in this way.

Since in Jade 2.5, I have not met this problem. With or without ontology, the composition of the AbsObjects is always same. So I want to know :

2. if it is a bug (since sometimes we create the agents without ontology, so in this way the AbsObjects can not present the agent's internal knowledge, and consequently influence the agent's communication), have you already done some thing for that?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a22 : Tue Aug 27 2002 - 14:49:10 MET DST