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

Re: SimpleProcess, some suggestions

From: Daniel Elenius <daele@ida.liu.se>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 16:48:41 -0700
Message-ID: <428E7759.6050705@ida.liu.se>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, public-sws-ig@w3.org

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On May 21, 2005, at 3:39 AM, Daniel Elenius wrote:
>
>> How about...
>>
>> 1) Changing the name of SimpleProcess to AbstractProcess
>> 2) Removing the expandsTo property
>> 3) Changing the range of realizedBy to Process
>>
>> Is there any credible scenario where we want to have one atomic and 
>> one composite process linked to the same simple (abstract) process?
>
>
> Sure. Any HTN planning (if it is going to use Simple/AbstractProcess). 
> One might expect it to be linked (or inferrably linked) to *many* of 
> each (though, technically, that's a bit of a departure from 
> traditional HTN...it's a departure evren's already made and 
> implemented and it makes a lot of sense).
>
But do they typically link to one atomic and one composite?

I'm definitely not saying there should only be one process "realizing" 
each simple/abstract process!

>> Why does it matter that they are composite/atomic?
>
>
> ?
>
What I mean is, why two different properties? Why does it matter whether 
the process that is linked to the simple process is atomic or composite? 
Presumably they both "realize" the simple process...

>> My suggestion means there could be different degrees of 
>> abstract-ness, as an AbstractProcess can be (partly) realizedBy 
>> another AbstractProcess. The concrete process in the end of the chain 
>> (if any) can be either atomic or composite.
>
>
> I don't really see the credible scenario for this. I can sorta imagine 
> something, perhaps that would work for planning, or negotitation, or 
> something. But the question, in general, is why Simple Processes at 
> all. Presumably, they are meant to help us make "templates"...I can 
> see wanting to refine or abstract the template...but wouldn't it be 
> better to do it with actual descriptions (e.g., profiles) that woudl 
> have an actual semantic relation (instead of a mere asserted one?)
>
That's a good point. This goes farther than my suggestion, as it amounts 
to not using realizedBy/expandsTo at all.

Daniel
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 23:48:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:14 UTC