Re: question: named vs. anonymous classes in creation of conditional outputs and effects

   <titi@cs-gw.utcluj.ro> wrote:

   As far as  understand there are 2 ways to create conditional
   outputs and effects: using anonymous subclasses (via the
   use of DAML+OIL "Restriction")and using explicit naming of the
   "ConditionalOutput" and "ConditionalEffect" subclasses, respectively.
   Can anybody explain in some details which is the difference between
   them? Which is the advantage of using one instead of the other?
   When should we use one and when should we use the other?

They have exactly the same meaning, except that named conditions can
be referred to elsewhere and anonymous conditions cannot.

   To the DAML-S team:
   In the http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/0.9/CongoProcess.owl, in the
   following property declaration:

   <rdf:Property rdf:ID="nameBookInCatalogue">
     <owl:domain rdf:resource="#BookInCatalogue" />
     <owl:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#string" />
   </rdf:Property>

   the property domain shouldn't be "#BookInCatalogueP" instead
   "#BookInCatalogue"?

I am a little shaky on what's going on here myself, so perhaps another
DAML-S person will correct what I'm going to say, but here goes:

BookInCatalogue is a process (the process of looking for the book in
the catalogue).  nameBookInCatalogue is a property of that process,
namely, the name of one of the books that were found, if any were.
BookInCatalogueP is a condition, represented as a set of process
instances in which at least 1 book was found, i.e., those process
instances for which the number of nameBookInCatalogue's is >= 1.

The idea is that if a process instance is in BookInCatalogueP, then
that's an occasion when the process is successful, and if it isn't,
then that instance is an occasion when the process is unsuccessful. 

In other places we use other notions of what a condition is, which
just reflects the difficulty of expressing conditions in the DL
framework we're working within.

-- 
                                             -- Drew McDermott

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 10:42:09 UTC