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

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

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:06:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4DF5FD39.6040305@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Paolo,

Eventually, we will when get to hardening all this definitions in a 
model. I think for now were just trying to get terminology and in some 
cases it's necessary to add things for clarification.


Paolo Missier wrote:
> +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 12:06:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:05 UTC