- From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:53:21 -0700
- To: Jeff Dalton <jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Jeff Dalton wrote: > Quoting Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>: > > >>>[Jeff Dalton] >> >>>Split+Join is described as follows in >>> >>>http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/owl-s.html >>> >>> Here the process consists of concurrent execution of a bunch >>> of process components with barrier synchronization. With SPLIT >>> and SPLIT+JOIN, we can define processes that have partial >>> synchronization (e.g., split all and join some sub-bag). >> >>... > > >>This is a case of semantics outstripping syntax. ... > > > Does that mean there's no OWL-S syntax that corresponds to > the above semantics? Jeff - It seems to me that's what it means - and I appreciate your pointing this out. If there's no further enlightenment forthcoming on this subject, I'm planning to just remove the offending comment (about partial synchronization) from Process.owl. Regards, David > > In the document about OWL-S surface syntax, it says > > (Split+Join List-of-processes) executes all the processes > in the List-of-processes in parallel, then waits until > all complete before proceeding. > > Is that correct, or is there some thing more to it? > > -- Jeff > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 15:51:49 UTC