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

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

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:29:27 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinwcbaWMoSjqutU_=9m2tXbaRZUcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 except for the caveat made in the last teleconference, e.g. I might
be modelling what I expect the provenance of something to be in 10
years time, in which case the execution is in the past of an imagined
future, not in the past from now.

So I would qualify the definition to something like:
  "the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the
position of any assertion made about it."

Thanks,
Simon

On 14 June 2011 11:48, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:29:55 GMT

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