W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Doubt about Parameter during execution

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:22:16 +0900
Message-Id: <C3B423CE-5ED9-11D9-AA78-000D93C1F7A6@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Tatiana Vieira <tascvieira@yahoo.com.br>, public-sws-ig@w3.org, Evren Sirin <evren@cs.umd.edu>
To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>

I'm not following the whole discussion, but...

On Jan 5, 2005, at 2:14 PM, David Martin wrote:
> Evren Sirin wrote:
[snip]
>> Yes, exactly. What I had in mind was a process description like this:
>> <process:AtomicProcess rdf:ID="FindBook">
>>    <process:hasInput>
>>        <process:Input rdf:ID="BookName">
>>            <process:parameterType 
>> rdf:datatype="&xsd;anyURI">&xsd;#string</process:parameterType>
>>        </process:Input>
>>    </process:hasInput>
>>    <process:hasOutput>
>>        <process:Output rdf:ID="BookInfo">
>>            <process:parameterType 
>> rdf:datatype="&xsd;anyURI">&books;#Book</process:parameterType>       
>>    </process:Output>
>>    </process:hasOutput>
>> </process:AtomicProcess>
>>>  I think the parameterType makes confusion in my mind!!!! In the 
>>> same way, did now the sintax of Parameter. As described at 
>>> Process.owl file, a Parameter can have at minimum one parameterType. 
>>> What does it mean?

It can mean a few things (for example, that the type of the value is 
the conjunction of the types), but I believe we meant for it to be 
compatible with sub/super typing. No parameter has only one type. 
(Probably no parameter.)

>>>  If it has more than one type, doesn't it have to have also the same 
>>> number of parameterValue? (I thought it as an structured parameter) 
>>> How can one Parameter have more than one type?
>> Hmm, that I don't know. I think that it should be a cardinality (not 
>> minCardinality) restriction.
>
> I also think it should  be a cardinality, and I don't remember anyone 
> advocating minCardinality.

You forgot :) We had a lengthy discussion about this.

If you interpret it as syntax (i.e., the *user specified* type) then a 
cardinality could be appropriate. If it is the *actual type* (in the 
sense that it should eventually resolve to the rdf:type of a value) 
then, minCardinality is required. The understanding at the time of the 
design was the latter.

> So, assuming no objections, let's fix this in the 1.2 release.

I would object. Clarifying text is  good, though. Also, I presume we 
can fix the value.

Note that the connection with parameterType and parameterValue is all 
extra owl, so we do need to be clear about it.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 05:22:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:59 GMT