- From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:59:48 -0700
- To: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Hi Austin - Good points ... note that they are consistent with our directions ... Austin Tate wrote: > > At 22:36 03/05/2004 -0700, David Martin wrote: > >> ... if "timeout" specifies a length of time that is allowed for the >> completion of (each execution of) a process (or control construct), >> then I think that does make sense. >> >> But I don't think we can keep timeoutAbsolute. I think that property >> was meant to specify an *absolute time* at which a process execution >> times out. > > > > I am not keen, as I have said before, about adding lots of these > properties of processes. Austin, in this thread, we were talking about 4 properties - 2 of which ("ends" and "begins") are properties of IntervalEvent (which is in the time ontology imported by owl-s). So I think those are already in line with your point of view on this. Regarding the other 2 properties ("timeout" and "timeoutAbsolute"), they have been properties of processes (actually of ProcessComponent, a superclass of Process) for a long time, but a point of this thread is that we are *removing* one of them. (So I think that is also in accord with your point of view. You should be celebrating. :-). Regards, David > There would just be so many that you might want > in terms of synchronicity, temporal delays and what not. A temporal > interval specification for an individual activity in the process is an > awful lot like a temporal delay BETWEEN activities for example. But we > would not want to add two separate properties. Absolute or metric time > information is also the same... Oo course we want to specify it in some > cases, but by no means all. > > There are more fundamentally abstract ways to specify temporal > relationships and intervals as being information about the interval > itself (between 2 time points) and NOT associated directly as an > attribute of the activities in a process at all. That means the same > relationships can hold between any time points including begin and end > time points of an activity. This is much more uniform. metric or > absolute temporal relationships can then be stated on those time points > or intervals as we wish, and the relationship to relevant begin/end time > points of activities is simpler to compute (often being able to use OR > algorithms). > > Austin > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 19:58:46 UTC