- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:47:37 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
At 09:27 16/01/2004 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: >So, it follows that AtomicProcesses aren't instants, which, while I accept >that, could perhaps complicate some aspects of reasoning with them. (E.g., >while it's great if you know that an AP is going to take up a certain >amount of time, since you may be trying to figure out the overall time for >a some composition, but you typically don't want, i take it, (relevant) >change to happen during the AP (at least, from "inside" the AP).) Of course you must allow for this in general. While some atomic process or activity is taking place there will be other services that might interact in some ways and you have to model the possible interactions in many domains. We often have range constraints that go across from the begin time point of an activity to the end time point of the activity which can act as a protection (or constraint checking) condition on external state changes that matter. Austin
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 09:46:44 UTC