W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [OWL-S]: proposal to collapse ProcessModel and Process

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:38:06 -0400
Message-Id: <2E7F6285-C05B-11D8-88B2-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
To: Daniel Elenius <daele@ida.liu.se>

On Jun 17, 2004, at 5:34 AM, Daniel Elenius wrote:

>> This sounds bizarre, as one could argue that a profile provides the  
>> black-box representation of a service (in addition to operational /  
>> non-functional parameters), whereas the process model provides a 
>> glass  box view.  As a consequence they are intimately related, thus  
>> necessitating that the author of a process to be aware of or keep 
>> track  of the related profiles.  In fact, what is the utility of 
>> having a  profile that differs (and possibly contradicts) the process 
>> model,  other than perhaps to optimise the behaviour of a given 
>> mechanism for a  given matchmaker or discovery service?
>
> If the Profile is a black-box view of a service, and the process a 
> glass-box view, what is the purpose of the SimpleProcess class?

The perennial question.

> Is it really needed? Isn't the purpose of SimpleProcess to provide a 
> "black-box" view of a CompositeProcess?

Actually, it can provide an abstraction over a set of processes, be 
they atomic or composite.

SimpleProcesses can be composed with other processes (profiles can't). 
OTOH, for many purposes SimpleProcesses really want some of the stuff 
that goes in a profile (e.g., templates where you want a cost function 
associated with the "holes"). You can work around this, I suppose, by 
associating SimpleProcesses with Profiles. Ick. Workable, but not the 
happiest.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 08:38:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:13 UTC