W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Multiple inputs and multiple outputs

From: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:19:55 +0800
Message-ID: <002701c38673$3a814fe0$fc0b77ca@xobjects>
To: "Monika Solanki" <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>

[Monika Solanki wrote:]

> Drew McDermott wrote:
> >   [Yuzhong Qu" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>]
> >   As we know, a process in DAML-S can have multiple inputs and multiple (conditional)outputs.
> >   (From http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Process.owl

> >   http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/0.9/Process.owl)
> >
> >   1. In the case of  multiple inputs
> >
> >       It seems to me that the process specified should take multiple
> >       inputs satisfying corresponding type constraint.
> >       Am I right?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >       But, how do you know the exact number of inputs? You just know
> >       what you know, maybe there is another statement about a new
> >       input (another input may be specified in other place) due to
> >       the openness of the Semantic Web (it's not a closed world).
> >
> >Good point.  We really need a fixed list of inputs and another of outputs.
> >[It would be interesting denial-of-service attack to tell a service
> >that it needed another input and have it then stall because no one is
> >supplying it. :)]
> >
> Although this may be an interesting theoretical argument, I do not quite 
> agree to the fact, that for a particular process,  there may be inputs 
> which might not be visible and are needed. I do not even envisage such a 
> condition, because the process model is not the only model that handles 
> these parameters. Infact the process model is just an abstract 
> representation. We have to remember that there is a grounding model as 
> well, which will take care of these details.for concrete process 
> execution. If the specification of these multiple inputs located at 
> multiple places is made visible in the grounding, then I do not see any 
> problem.
> More comments on this welcome.

Yes, this is a theoretical issue, but it's about the principle. I insist on my point.

What would happen when an agent (e.g. an agent doing the matching job) just gets some part of the stuff?

As we know, every agent just gets what it can get, the agent can't make sure that it has captured all of the related  stuff (e.g. multiple input/output issue).

How could an agent make sure that it knows all of the related knowledge distributed over the Internet/world?  

In the realm of the Semantic Web, an agent just knows what it knows, so does the human being.

> Cheers,
> Monika
> -- 
> **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**
> 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
> **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**

Thanks for your concern!

Yuzhong Qu
Dept.Computer Science and Engineering
Southest University, Nanjing, China

Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 06:26:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:12 UTC