On the Convergence of Analysis and Design Methods for Multi-Agent, Component-Based and Object-Oriented Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general trend of the information technology evolution towards component-based and software agent-based systems calls for an integration of the analysis and design methods proposed up to now. As a step towards such an integration, we propose changing the paradigm on which analysis and design methods rely, shifting from the individual-centered notion of a “service” to the group-centered notion of a “game”. Instead of designing a system on the basis of the services that each object or component can provide, we propose considering the whole game in which agents, components and users can play various roles in order to perform some common task. We first review the recent evolution of analysis and design methods used to develop object-oriented, component-based, knowledge-based and multiagent systems. We propose an approach to specify the service game of a system based on the use of an extended form of use case maps. We show how this simple technique could help to the convergence of analysis and design methods used to specify systems using object-oriented, component-based, knowledge-based and multiagent approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".