- From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:08:56 -0700
- To: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
I'd like to collapse ProcessModel and Process, in Process.owl. I doubt if anyone will object to this, in principle, but I think it should be mentioned "for the record". It has been discussed, now and then, in the past. ProcessModel has always been a simple class which points to a Process and also to a "process control model". Of course, ProcessControlModel is just a placeholder; no one has ever done any work on it (that is, not in the context of OWL-S). (But note that I think there's some important work to be done in this area; it's just that it's not a near-term priority.) "Collapsing" these 2 classes just means: get rid of ProcessModel, and replace each reference to ProcessModel with a reference to the associated Process. (The ranges of a couple properties will need to be changed, from ProcessModel to Process, and a very small number of facts will need to be changed in our existing examples.) There are two motivations for collapsing these two classes: (1) a general desire for simplification (streamlining); (2) we're finding that this particular simplification has some benefits for the UI of the OWL-S editor we're working on. It was never entirely clear that the existing organization (ProcessModel pointing to a Process and a ProcessControlModel) was intuitively right, anyway. That is, when we do have more to say about "process control", the new ontology elements may be directly connected to process classes anyway, so there's not a clear need to have this superclass that connects Process and ProcessModel. The only concern that I think might come up here is that some existing tools and applications might have to be modified to accommodate this proposed change. But of course they'll have to be modified anyway to accommodate more significant changes in the upcoming 1.1 release. Comments welcome. -- David
Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 21:07:10 UTC