W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution duration

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:21:41 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinYtFPWkvyKLZgCfxaZeGhK5i=5hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1

makes sense

Simon

On 10 June 2011 10:25, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> +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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 10:22:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT