- 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