RE: The Unordered control construct in DAML-S 0.7

Hi Monika,
 
IMO, the DAML-S specification needs to be corrected to account for the
inconsistencies that you have pointed out. I suggest the following
fixes...
 
The line that currently reads "Z=(Unordered A B)" should read
"Z=(Unordered X Y)"
 
Likewise the duplicate entry (a;c;d;b) should be removed from the list.
The important thing to note is that in each of the possible execution
orders, the sequence a;b and c;d are preserved.
 
Regards,
 
Paul Buhler 

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Monika Solanki
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:21 AM
To: www-ws
Subject: The Unordered control construct in DAML-S 0.7


 I am a bit confused over the control cnstruct " unordered" as defined
in DAML-S 0.7:

Let a, b, c, and d be atomic processes, and X, Y, and Z be composite
processes:
X = (Sequence a b)
Y = (Sequence c d)
Z = (Unordered A B)

 do X & Y correspond to A & B respectively or am I missing something.

Z, then, translates to the following partial ordering:
{(a;b), (c;d)}
where ';' means \executes before", and the possible execution sequences
(total
orders) include
{(a;b;c;d), (a;c;b;d), (a;c;d;b), (a;c;d;b),
(c;d;a;b), (c;a;d;b), (c;a;b;d)}

are the repeition of execution sequence ordering a typo or intentional.

Any comments will be helpful.

Thanks

Monika


-- 
>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**< 
Monika Solanki
De Montfort University 
Software Technology Research Laboratory
Hawthorn building, H00.18 
The Gateway. 
Leicester LE1 9BH, UK 

phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170
email: monika@dmu.ac.uk 
web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika/
<http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/%7Emonika/>  
>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<