- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:17:20 -0400
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Sep 7, 2004, at 3:58 PM, Drew McDermott wrote: [snip] >>>> *composite* >>>> processes can, in principle, be automatically generated by >>>> tools. >>>> Since such tools don't yet exist, they have been manually >>>> generated >>>> for this example. >>>> >>>> How would such automatic generation happen? > > It wouldn't. That comment should be deleted. Many of us have been long skeptical about such claims. > As we discussed in today's telecon, it's probably not feasible to > infer the outputs or effects of a composite process. A simple case is > where a step generates two outputs, only one of which is a useful > output of the process the step belongs to. But the real problem is > that it's undecidable what effects or values a composite process is > going to have, unless some strong limits are put on recursion of > 'perform's of other processes. I don't know if the topic of limiting > recursion in Owl-S has ever come up. Yes, in principle, at least. I think. I remember a Sheila slide, but I don't see any discussion of k-loops in "Simulation, Verification and Automated Composition of Web Services": http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/narayanan02simulation.html Hmm. I poked around (e.g., Rich Hull's stuff) but couldn't find the smoking slide or paper. [snip] > Adopting a "shorthand" convention in XML/RDF is like putting a smaller > hood ornament on your SUV to reduce gasoline consumption. [snip] I'm laughing. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 20:17:52 UTC