- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:22:24 -0500
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> [Tatiana Vieira] > composed process A > composedOf Sequence > process B > composedOf Split > process C > process D > process E > process F > > This way, process B output is the conjunction of the output of > processes C, D and E. So, if everything goes right in process B, it > means that all the 3 processes execute correctly and the output is > Ok. However, if one or more of these 3 processes did not execute > correctly, also didn't process B. I don't know how to represent the > negative result, I mean, the fact that if one of the 3 processes > go wrong, does process B. The positive result condition is the > conjunction of the 3 positive results, and what is the negative > result condition, if I can't specify 3 different conditions for > exactly the same effect and output? Right now Owl-S embodies a minimalist concept of process failure. A process fails if it doesn't complete. That doesn't really fit with the intuitive notion, where a process might complete but return an error code; or it might signal an exception. Anyway, a Split+Join fails to complete if and only if some component fails to complete, so the semantics is clear enough. It's probably not what you want. I believe Split differs from Split+Join in that Split succeeds as soon as a component is started. That means that a Split can never fail. I don't really know what someone would do with this. I think Owl-S needs a lot more work in this area. Suggestions are welcome. -- -- Drew McDermott Yale University Computer Science Department
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 19:21:25 UTC