- From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:02:11 -0700
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Drew McDermott wrote: >>[David Martin] > > ... > >>I suspect that for many simple services (certainly those with a single >>Result), it'll be fine for the Profile to reference the identical Result >>object as the Process. In cases where the Process has several Result >>instances, of course, there would be no requirement that all of them be >>reproduced in the corresponding Profile. In those cases, I suspect that >>the most common representation would be to reproduce just one of the >>Result instances from the Process. Personally, I think that approach >>yields a cleaner picture than having completely different properties and >>classes used in profile vs. process. >> >>Comments? > > > I'm convinced. Yes, let's make the Profile look like the Process in > this regard. > > And it does seem plausible that the Profile would describe the > "normal" result of interacting with a web service, not all the things > that could go wrong. Thanks for commenting, Drew. OK, I've made these changes in the 1.1 (Draft) release. That is, in Profile.owl: hasEffect is now Deprecated (moved to ProfileDeprecatedProperties.owl) hasResult has been added (with range process:Result) Also, the range of hasOutput has been changed to process:Output (from process:ConditionalOutput). Cheers, David
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 18:00:01 UTC