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

Re: More on hasDataFrom etc

From: Daniel Elenius <elenius@csl.sri.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:44:51 -0800
Message-ID: <41A7F833.5040505@csl.sri.com>
To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, public-sws-ig@w3.org

Drew McDermott wrote:

>>[Daniel]
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Another thing that should be stated explicitly in OWL-S (if I am right) 
>>is that the Parameter that a hasDataFrom binds *from* has to be an 
>>Output, UNLESS it is a parameter of the parent perform, in which case it 
>>must be an Input.
>>    
>>
>
>As I said earlier, the phrase "the Parameter that a hasDataFrom binds
>*from*" is not in general well defined.  I prefer to think of the
>value being passed as an arbirary expression, which may mention 0, 1,
>2, or any other number of parameters from previous steps.  For
>convenience in the XML/RDF notation, there's one special case
>(ValueOf) in which the expression is of the form step.param.
>
>  
>
Right, I meant more specifically for the valueSource case.

>It's true that in these expressions all parameters mentioned in an
>expression must be inputs of the current process ("the parent
>perform") or outputs of a step of that process.
>
>  
>
>>This one is hard to state formally, because of the rather deep nesting 
>>of properties and instances in these parts of OWL-S, but at the very 
>>least there should be some comments in Process.owl and the technical 
>>overview stating this.
>>    
>>
>
>Yeah, I agree.
>
>                                             -- Drew
>
>--
>[To unsubscribe to this list send an email to "majdart@bbn.com"
>with the following text in the BODY of the message "unsubscribe daml-process"]
>  
>
Received on Saturday, 27 November 2004 03:45:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:58 GMT