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

Re: Doubt about parameter data flow

From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:25:49 -0400
Message-ID: <17102.54077.75000.877423@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org

> [Tatiana Vieira]
>   Hi people,
>   Supose I have the following process:
> process H
>   Split
>     A: split B and C
>     D: split E and F
>   In this case, could process C, for instance, receive as input parameter, a value from process E or F?

Without a formal semantics for Owl-S processes, it's not absolutely
clear, but I believe the answer is Yes.  An interpreter for the
language should wait until such values are available before proceeding
with the steps that consume them.

                                             -- Drew McDermott
						   Computer Science Department
						Yale University

Completely irrelevant linguistic postscript: The word "doubt" as used
by Vieira here is not standard English, but it seems to be gaining
rapidly in popularity.  The correct standard word is "question," as in
"I have a question about parameter data flow."  But the version "I
have a doubt about ..." seems to be quite normal in Indian English,
and it's beginning to be copied to places such as far-off Brazil.

Which reminds me of "allows to X," whose meaning is clear, in spite of
being ungrammatical; it should be "allows us to X" or "allows one to
X."  I predict this will be perfectly good English very soon, given
that it allows to drop a useless word.  Just one doubt: Does this
locution come from German?  Or is it the general case in Indo-European

[Please don't reply to this part of the message, at least not to the
mailing list!  My questions (or doubts) are purely rhetorical!]
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 19:28:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:15 UTC