- From: Monika Solanki <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:48:19 +0100
- To: www-ws@w3.org
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 06:59 AM, Monika Solanki wrote: [snip description and option 1, as I disscuss it elsewhere] > Option 2: > Since communication will actually happen within the atomic services of > these composite services and since atomic services can execute > sequentially or independently in parallel with each other, the > representation of this problem in DAML-S is possible in terms of > atomic services and control constructs. > > I am certain abut option 1, however option 2 may solve this problem. I > want a second opinion about option 2. Will the actual solution need > new constructs or is option 2 the solution [snip] I'm not sure I understand option 2. I don't see how communication happens *within* the atomic services. If you mean that we can notice the dataflow dependancy and rewrite the parallel construct as a sequential one, that seems right to me. I'd go further and point out that if we have glass box views of the communicating process, we might discover that B needs info for A in step 47 of (rather than step 1). So, sequencing all of A before all of B would be unfortunate. (It still could be handled. I'm not sure, but I think SHOP2 would be able to build this compositoin (well, with concurrancy awareness added in.) You should get something like a split all of A, steps 1-46 of B, join on 47, etc.. I'll note that this seems to be the kind of composition (coordinating message exchanges) folks like Richard Hull are talking about. Cheers, Bijan. -- **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** Monika Solanki Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL) De Montfort University Hawthorn building, H00.18 The Gateway Leicester LE1 9BH, UK phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 email: monika@dmu.ac.uk web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**
Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 02:44:15 UTC