- 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