Re: [OWL-S] Who does what?

I had seen this point... and to avoid doubt I am not against being able to 
represent separate processes and show how they might synchronise as in 
Drew/David's type (3) suggestion.  But I am against HAVING to do this is 
there are multiple participants.  I think it should be possible to also 
model a process and map the activities to the participants/roles/ etc. Austin

At 07:30 PM 19/12/2003 -0500, Drew McDermott wrote:
>The problem with the first scheme is that it works fine as long as
>the participants are more or less in synchrony.  But as soon as they
>diverge somehow (even pause from communicating with each other while
>they communicate with other parties), then either you have to
>represent the Cartesian product of their states; or you have to allow
>their process lines to diverge, and then you wind up here, at the
>bitter end of this paragraph.
>
>Instead, if you start by representing their processes separately, then
>all you have to do to represent the joint choreography is to indicate
>that a certain act in one player's script is a possible or normal
>reaction to an act is another player's script.  Neither player needs
>this information to act, but a reasoner can draw conclusions from it.

Received on Saturday, 20 December 2003 06:30:10 UTC