+1 Looks good to me. Jun On 10/06/2011 10:14, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > > +1 > > khalid > > On 09/06/2011 21:27, Paul Groth wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> In the telecon today we almost reached consensus around the following >> proposal: >> >> "A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval" >> >> However, there were concerns that this meant that it required all >> process executions to specify a duration. >> >> I would like to suggest a reformulation of the proposal as follows: >> >> "A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval. >> Statements denoting this duration are optional." >> >> In order to make progress, can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for >> this proposal? >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> > >Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 09:23:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT