Re: Re: OWL-S question: multiple atomic processes

On 11/28/06, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Jo Vermeulen wrote:
>
> > Dear Brian,
>
> It's "Bijan", not Brian :)

Oh, I am sorry! I had a quick look at your name and probably mapped it
directly to Brian :-)

> > Thanks for your response! I was indeed thinking of defining my own
> > "Service" OWL class, which could contain multiple OWL-S processes,
> > and thereby would still do what I want. However, this is a custom
> > extension to OWL-S.
> >
> > Is defining the three distinct services as a composite choice
> > process a good alternative, or is it just a hack, abusing the OWL-S
> > spec? Can you still choose yourself which of the three services
> > will be executed?
>
> Why not? :)
>
> > From the spec:
> >
> > <quote>
> > : Choice calls for the execution of a single control construct from
> > a given bag of control constructs (given by the components
> > property). Any of the given control constructs may be chosen for
> > execution.
> > </quote>
> >
> > The sentence "any of the given control constructs may be chosen for
> > execution" makes me think it it not possible.
>
> Well, that's true either way, yes? It doesn't say who is in control,
> but you could choose to invoke any of the services.

Oh, IC...

> If the inputs are distinguishable, then I think it's fair to expect
> the system to pick the service that *can* process it. In the case of
> compatibility (either operation could handle the input) there is,
> indeed, no further constraint on the system.
>
> > I am going to add more metadata to OWL-S services  as a custom
> > extension, so it is actually no disaster if I would have to define
> > a "service" of my own, on top of the three OWL-S services.
>
> I would call it something else like "service collection" or "service
> set" but other than that, I would go for it. Why not :) Done right,
> it could get into the spec, I imagine.
>
> What you won't get is toolkit support out of the box for it. But if
> you are just collecting services into a set, plus a little metadata
> on top, I don't see that this is a problem. as long as the collected
> services are described "normally", any owl-s toolkit should be able
> to extract and use the descriptions just fine. So you'll have
> graceful degradation.

Ok, that's indeed good enough. Thanks a lot for your help Bijan!

> Cheers,
> Bijan "Not Brian" Parsia.

Cheers!

-- Jo

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 12:24:32 UTC