W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2002

RE: FW: TBTF: Trace Bindings - wire view v requester/responder vi

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:19:14 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1928B2@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, chris.ferris@east.sun.com, gdaniels@macromedia.com, henrikn@microsoft.com, highland.m.mountain@intel.com, jones@research.att.com, marc.hadley@uk.sun.com, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, ohurley@iona.com, www-archive@w3.org
Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 18 January 2002 04:00
> To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; chris.ferris@east.sun.com;
> gdaniels@macromedia.com; henrikn@microsoft.com;
> highland.m.mountain@intel.com; jones@research.att.com;
> marc.hadley@uk.sun.com; Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com; ohurley@iona.com;
> www-archive@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FW: TBTF: Trace Bindings - wire view v 
> requester/responder
> vi
> 
> 
> This is really interesting, but unfortunately I have neither the time
> nor the experience to properly evaluate this model.

Glad you find it interesting... I hope you've had a chance to glance at
least at the second message that I send to Noah (yesterday) [1], it gets to
more directly address the question in his response [not archived]

From Noah:
> > I think the main point of confusion for me can be summarized as: what 
> > happened to the named properties?

> Do we have people in the WG who do have time and experience?  Because
> I'd be concerned if we are thinking of making this normative if the
> model hasn't been verified by either 1) review by (hopefully) at least
> two people, or 2) execution.  If I recall, process algebras are
> executable, right?

Indeed process algebra expressions can be executed... you can drop
expressions into environments that will develop traces, check for livelock,
deadlock, safety... and also let you explore by poking them with events.

I am very open to the tabular presentation being consider by the group as
the more accessible - the process algebra can be developed from the table
and for those that might want to execute it that can be done. The tables do
contain some prose, so clearly, direct execution of the table is not really
an option.

My main aim in raising this as an alternative was to ask the question of
whether it enables us to give a more compact presentation of our material
without, in the process, making it inaccessible.

> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

Regards

Stuart
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/0078.html
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 06:40:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:16 GMT