Re: questions about Process.owl

On Mar 4, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Drew McDermott wrote:

[snipped a distinction between two VERY different things...things so
different they should NEVER be confused....indeed, one should put
descriptions of them in different documents that are stored on
different servers with no possible connection between them!]
> communication. Identifying the two makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps. :)

[snip]
> I'll go ahead and do this, but if someone wants to pull the plug, we
> can do it in the interest of conservatism. Actually, I think making
> the inside of a process look more like the outside is something
> Bijan has always argued for,

Indeed.

> so if he's listening I wouldn't
> anticipate an objection from his zone. Anyone else?

I hope not :)

(For the record, what I had obsessively argued for is the ability to
have a level of abstraction, perhaps the primary level of abstraction,
where the distinction between intra and inter-process "calls" is
elided. I would, of course, never want it to be the case that you could
*never* get at the distinction, e.g., when analyzing a particular
execution (or proposed execution) of an abstracted process, you will
most definitely care about things that you don't care about at the
abstract level. For example, you might have preferences that things be
done as locally as possible, or you might need to do a security
analysis, etc. But this is something distinct from the *what* you
intend to do.)

Cheers,
Bijan.

--
[To unsubscribe to this list send an email to "majdart@bbn.com"
with the following text in the BODY of the message "unsubscribe daml-process"]