- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:36:55 -0400
- To: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Public-Sws-Ig@W3. Org" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
On Apr 28, 2004, at 9:30 AM, Austin Tate wrote: > At 09:23 28/04/2004 -0400, you wrote: >> Well, I would advise consulting before hand. I don't see a need >> WHATSOEVER for dummy services and the like. > > Interesting... the no-op solution had been my suggestion to Jeff > Dalton. Not necessarily the one he would adopt! Lets wait and see what > he arrives at and we would much appreciate comment on the proposed > solution. We are keen that the (web services composition) plans > encoded in OWL-S are usable by other systems that we will interact > with though... so they must share knowledge of any encoding we use. > Austin Ah, yes, that's a bit different. Notice however that's not about bridging the gap between the expressiveness of OWL-S and what you desire to express, it's about expressing what you want to express in a way that other systems will understand them. If other planners or executes are using the standard PE model, then, sure, they'll hork on a direct expression of effects before the process is complete. But that's clearly a different issue, yes? Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 09:37:51 UTC