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

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

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:57:10 +0100
Message-ID: <4DF5FB16.1020100@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1  (belated)

note that this creates a small precedent, namely that some properties are optional (which implies that some or not), so do we now 
have an obligation to be specific about that?

--Paolo

On 6/9/11 9:27 PM, 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 Monday, 13 June 2011 11:57:49 GMT

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