From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:51:24 +0100

Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030424215114.03a35e40@mail.inf.ed.ac.uk:993>

To: www-ws@w3.org

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:51:24 +0100

Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030424215114.03a35e40@mail.inf.ed.ac.uk:993>

To: www-ws@w3.org

At 08:21 PM 22/04/2003 -0400, Michael Kifer wrote: >1. Partial modeling using constraints. > The constraints can be pre/post conditions, but also dependencies among > actions (temporal, causality, etc.) This is an underlying abstraction I am keen on and that I think has very nice extendability yet provides a very simple underlying abstraction - one we know that NIST PSL in particular can be built over. Processes and their description can be described as a set of constraints on the whole space of potential behaviours/processes of interest. This is anchored by describing a process model as including a specific set of activities (think of this as "include a specific activity" constraint). Activities each have an associated begin and end time point (also describing an interval over which they occur). The activities are described by a verb along with 0 or more arguments which can refer to any of a set of process-relatable objects and features in the domain. A set of constraints of any conceivable kind can be stated for the activities. This provides the generality. The constraints can refer to activities, time points and any of the process-relatable objects in the domain. The trick is to allow defined subsets or partial representations of such constraints such that reasoning and automated services can support the ones chosen. AustinReceived on Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:53:19 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:08 UTC
*