Re: Effects in OWL-S

At 07:41 28/04/2004 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>But it should be easy enough to add another field to our condition object 
>that indicates timepoint of evaluation/application. Would this be worth 
>anything to you?


It would indeed.  It would reflect the fact than a service invocation (or 
any activity in fact) has a tie interval over which it takes place and 
therefore has an (implicit) begin and end time point associated with it... 
so both can be referred to in constraints.  Note begin/end as the naming 
for these time points (as in NIST PSL, etc) not start/end or begin/finish - 
which I think of as poorly paired named.


>We could make the current PEs derived subclasses of the more general case 
>pretty easily. Rename Effects to PostEffects and it even scans. I don't 
>think calling out this common case is necessarily so bad.


I agree... and you have got it Bijan... the trick is to give the simple 
(pre)condition and (post)effect as just one case of the more general 
model.  but the general model would be what underlies the standard... the 
others would be simple shorthand or syntactic sugar.  this gives a much 
more minimalist and simultaneously more powerful core model.

>Note that this doesn't have to be rolled into our release. It should be 
>possible to do smoothly in any case. We should try it, Austin. I'd like to 
>see what you've already done to accomodate your needs.

We would have to introduce dummy or "no op" activities/services and such 
tricks.  Jeff Dalton here is just looking at OWL-S export (of the resulting 
composite service description) from our web services composition 
demonstration using O-Plan and the new I-Plan.  I will ask him to provide 
his solution when it settles down.

Austin

Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 08:46:08 UTC