- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:19:25 +0000
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
At 03:14 PM 05/01/2004 -0500, Drew McDermott wrote: >There are some clear cases where they do >resemble each other, such as > > Step 2 can't run until data from step 1 are available. > Agent B can't run until message from agent A is received. > >The problem is that these resemblances are superficial. ..... > >I should admit that I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of >representing the interaction between a bunch of actors as one big >diagram, if the result is increased clarity. I'm just claiming that >the connections within an agent will be quite different from the >connections between agents, and the notation should reflect that >fact. I hope we can represent processes in single descriptions where this is convenient and useful. But it might be that several separate activities synchronised where useful via various constraints also works better. I think that representing a processes as a set of activities to be performed and a set of constraints on how those relate (in time, space, as and between agents, etc) can be imposed upon them... this would incudes conditionals and other types of logical constraint too. Happy new year folks! Austin
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 15:20:46 UTC