- From: Dickinson, Ian J <Ian_J_Dickinson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:02:27 +0100
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: Mitch Kokar [mailto:kokar@coe.neu.edu] > If DAML is to be used to describe programs (at a high level) > then it seems to make sense to use the representations that > the software engineers use for > this purpose. This representation is UML. UML has a number of ways of > representing behavior: sequence diagrams, collaboration > diagrams, state > transition diagrams and activity diagrams. I believe it is > better to adopt > some or all of these representations rather than invent new ones. I disagree. That would be like saying that companies today should advertise in the yellow pages by posting the flow charts of their business processes. Consumers choose vendors by *what* they do, not how they do it. Similarly, agents (e-services, web-services, etc ... pick your poison) will also want to choose other services based on what they do, i.e. on the pre- and post-conditions, and meta-data such as cost and quality. So a state transition diagram would simply be the wrong level of detail. In any case, a graphical notation is not really suited to automated processing. Cheers, Ian ____________________________________________________________________ Ian Dickinson HP Labs, Bristol, UK mailto:Ian_Dickinson@hp.com
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2001 13:02:35 UTC