- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:15:27 +0100
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
At 22:36 03/05/2004 -0700, David Martin wrote: >... if "timeout" specifies a length of time that is allowed for the >completion of (each execution of) a process (or control construct), then I >think that does make sense. > >But I don't think we can keep timeoutAbsolute. I think that property was >meant to specify an *absolute time* at which a process execution times out. I am not keen, as I have said before, about adding lots of these properties of processes. There would just be so many that you might want in terms of synchronicity, temporal delays and what not. A temporal interval specification for an individual activity in the process is an awful lot like a temporal delay BETWEEN activities for example. But we would not want to add two separate properties. Absolute or metric time information is also the same... Oo course we want to specify it in some cases, but by no means all. There are more fundamentally abstract ways to specify temporal relationships and intervals as being information about the interval itself (between 2 time points) and NOT associated directly as an attribute of the activities in a process at all. That means the same relationships can hold between any time points including begin and end time points of an activity. This is much more uniform. metric or absolute temporal relationships can then be stated on those time points or intervals as we wish, and the relationship to relevant begin/end time points of activities is simpler to compute (often being able to use OR algorithms). Austin
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 05:15:04 UTC