- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:59:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-ws@w3.org
[me]
> Suppose C sends a message to P two or more times, at least on
> some runs, e.g.:
>
> C = (seq (P) (if Q then ... else (P)))
>
> I've suppressed the actual dataflow, but assume that C is sending data
> to P and getting some back. With respect to a run of C in which Q is
> false after C interacts with (P), let P1 be that first interaction,
> and P2 be the second.
[Bijan Parsia]
Fine.
> What exactly are P1 and P2?
Don't know, and don't care.
*Someone* has to decide somewhere, sometime.
Judging from this and other things you've said, I'm guessing you're
adopting the Anthropomorphic Stance. That is, you're visualizing P as
an entity that exists, minds its own business, lives and lets live,
and occasionally gets messages that it feels compelled to respond to.
Fine. We can have *all* processes be like that if you want.
But P may be getting messages from many different agents
simultaneously. It must keep track somehow of which messages are
starting a new conversation and which are following up an old one. I
take it that the Anthropomorphic Stance holds that it's the _content
of each message_ that determines which conversation it's a part of.
The parts of a message that determine such things might be called
"correlation tokens." (Maybe that's exactly what they're called; I
know the word "correlation" is used in a way relevant to my
puzzlement.)
So my followup question is: Where in DAML-S (if anywhere) do we
specify the correlation tokens in messages?
--
-- Drew McDermott
Yale University CS Dept.
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 16:59:56 UTC