W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Starting from DAML-S

From: Terry R. Payne <trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:16:11 +0100
To: "'Stefan Decker'" <stefan@isi.edu>, <www-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f301c30a9e$593630a0$3e404e98@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Stefan,
	Agreed.  I'd be very much in favour of coming up with a
minimalist language that only covers part of the use-space (similar in a
way to OWL-Full vs OWL-Lite) and then move up from there.  Part of the
reason for the disconnect between the profile and process model is due
to the richness of the process model language.

For example - given the fact that there are interation and conditional
constructs in the model (in fact there are several of each), it is
intractable to represent the necessary sets of IOPEs for all possible
execution traces.  Restrict the language to remove this flexibility, and
one could still do simpler compositions (e.g. sequential and concurrent
process flows), yet one could derive the profile IOPEs from the model.

Ok, so it might only be suitable for a subset of problems, but if it is
pragmatic then there is an immediate win over a model that is far more
flexible, but less pragmatic. 

That would be the approach I would advocate.  Then once this works,
extend the model.

	Terry


_______________________________________________________________________
Terry R. Payne, PhD.      | http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~trp/index.html
University of Southampton | Voice: +44(0)23 8059 8343 [Fax: 8059 2865]
Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK | Email: terry@acm.org / trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-swsl-committee@wrath.daml.org [mailto:owner-swsl-
> committee@wrath.daml.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Decker
> Sent: 24 April 2003 21:06
> To: www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Starting from DAML-S
> 
> Hi,
> 
> during the last F2F meeting Bijan and I, with the help of Sheila,
> tried to understand certain aspects of DAML-S.
> It occurred to us (after a while) that DAML-S has multiple ways to say
the
> same thing, which are not necessary in a minimal language
> (and which are quite confusing to me).
> 
> Given Austin's comments today, and starting from DAML-S,
> it makes sense to look at the different
> DAML-S constructs and try to minimize DAML-S so that
> we hopefully end up with a minimal set of agreed upon
> primitives necessary to do what DAML-S does.
> 
> Best,
> 	Stefan
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:16:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:41 GMT