Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in the past

• From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
• Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:03:28 +0100
• To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <4DF74000.6020308@zoo.ox.ac.uk>

Hi Luc,

Are we removing the optional part about duration?

Also, the concept page also mentions "process". To me, this seems like a 
terminology issue. Are we going to eliminate the use of process or are 
we going to have a separate discussion?

cheers,

Jun


On 14/06/11 11:45, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> In trying to move towards a definition of process execution, it would be
> good to get the groups consensus on the notion of process execution
> being in the past. Namely, the following is proposed from the last telecon:
>
> "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is
> occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of
> a process execution is always in the past."
>
> Can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for this proposal via a response
> to this email message?
>
> The due date for responses is this Thursday before the telecon.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:04:10 UTC