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

Re: Processes as instances: Some suggestions

From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:46:34 -0700
Message-ID: <3F405A2A.7060506@ai.sri.com>
To: Monika Solanki <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
CC: paolucci+@cs.cmu.edu, www-ws <www-ws@w3.org>

Hi Monika -

I agree with what you are suggesting, in general - that we have a set of 
classes for describing IOPE's, which are used both in profile and 
process.   I have two comments:

1) From the beginning, we've always regarded IOPE's as "belonging to" 
the process model, more so than the profile - and I think that's the 
most clear way of thinking about them.  So if we adopt the approach 
you've outlined, I would strongly favor moving InputDescription, 
OutputDescription, etc. from Profile.daml to Process.daml.  (Of course 
then they could be referenced from Profile.daml.)

2) Marta has made a renaming suggestion that we should consider.  Instead of
   input ranges over InputDescription
   output ranges over OutputDescription

why not use
   hasInput ranges over Input
   hasOutput ranges over Output

(Here again I would have the classes Input, Output, etc. declared in 

Best regards,

Monika Solanki wrote:

> 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:input>
>    <process:IOSpec rdf:ID="congoBuyBookISBN">
>      <process:IOName rdf:resource="congoBuyBookISBN"/>
>    <!--DLM: IOType, inputType, or daml:type? -->
>      <process:IOType rdf:resource="&xsd;#string"/>
>    </process:IOSpec>
>  </process:input>
> </process:AtomicProcess>
> 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" />
> </daml:Property>
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Monika
> 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 Monday, 18 August 2003 00:46:52 UTC

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