- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 11:56:51 +0000
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
At 11:42 AM 09/11/2003 +0000, Austin Tate wrote: >I would favour a much simpler underlying idea that an activity always has: > >a) an (implicitly) associated begin and end time point > >b) can optionally can be broken down into 0 or more sub-activities - if 0 >its considered as a primitive activity in the current model > >c) a set of constraints of various types on and between the activity, the >objects manipulated by that activity and the time-points of the activity >and any of its sub-activities. The constraints then include the simplest >activity ordering constraint "(before end-of(activity-1) to >begin-of(activity-2))" and world state preconditions/effects as >specialisations that are frequently used - but they are not the only ones. I could have added that this is compatible with the approach taken by NIST PSL which can give us a nice extendable framework for the process model in SWSL. Austin
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 06:57:59 UTC