- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:46:58 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
At 11:42 AM 16/01/2004 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: >That sounds like a density assumption, if the interference is supposed to >happen between the start and end times. That is incompatible with most >temporal DB models, be warned. That's life... actually its not as bad as it sounds... we just make sure we have world state protection ranges (a type of constraint for us) for those things that must not be affected so we can check for potential interactions p or state there must not be any (used at the time we do enactment and execution monitoring). We call this Goal Structure Based Monitoring. Also... Start/Finish or Begin/End please - not the bastardized Start/End ;-) Hobby horse of mine. >No need to have mess where you can be tidy, though. This issue has been >gone into in unbelievable depth, and you can take your preferred option >off the shelf. Absolutely... and we use a lot of your own calendar/clock tick stuff in our own approach (as does NIST PSL as you know). Cheers, Austin
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 05:49:57 UTC