- 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