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

Re: Processes as instances: Some suggestions

From: Monika Solanki <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:53:17 +0100
Message-ID: <3F3FB2FD.70705@dmu.ac.uk>
To: paolucci+@cs.cmu.edu, www-ws <www-ws@w3.org>

Hi All :

I tend to agree with Massimo. Further to that I have a few suggestions ( 
It may have been mentoined earlier, I am not sure) . I am reproducing 
here part of David's example from CongoProcess.

<process:AtomicProcess rdf:ID="ExpressCongoBuy">
    <process:IOSpec rdf:ID="congoBuyBookISBN">
      <process:IOName rdf:resource="congoBuyBookISBN"/>
    <!--DLM: IOType, inputType, or daml:type? -->
      <process:IOType rdf:resource="&xsd;#string"/>

As we see here, David has introduced IOSpec for defining properties of 
the input like "Name" and "Type" and we would need similar things for 
specifying all the other properties. Now with the latest developments 
with the correspondence between these properties in Profile and Process, 
we have well defined classes "InputDescription" etc which offer the 
properties like functionalPropertyName <--->IOName as above , restricted 
To <----->IOType as above. Can we use these classes for specifying the 
Functional properties in the Process model ?. This way we can ensure 
that the description of the properties stay in one place and only 
references are made wherever the mapping needs to be defined. So if  we 
define "InputDescription" in Profile, in Process we can write:

<daml:Property rdf:ID="input">
  <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#parameter" />
  <daml:range rdf:resource="&profile;#InputDescription" />

I hope I am not violating any rules here (circular reasoning???). But 
seems like this will make the binding a bit more tight between the 
profile and process models. I may be completely wrong with this.



Massimo Paolucci wrote:

>Martha, David and all,
>I did not look at the issue of the relation between the process and
>the profile under the PAI model,  as I am trying to sort out the other
>issues first (trace and data flow).  Nevertheless,  I do not
>understand why we cannot do the same thing that we do in the PAC
>case.  Most likely the owl representation will have to be modified to
>account for references to instances instead of classes, but the
>underlying model should still be the same...or may be I am missing
>something important.
>--- Massimo
>[To unsubscribe to this list send an email to "majdart@bbn.com"
>with the following text in the BODY of the message "unsubscribe daml-process"]
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:47:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:09 UTC