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.

thanks,
Paul

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 GMT

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