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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:31:59 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|fff7f8186504d103a32a16fce971d71bn5DDW708L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DF754BF.3080904@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jun,

I am not understanding your question.  The decisions so far are
listed here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/AgreementOnConcepts

Regarding "process", which page do you refer to?

Thanks,
Luc

On 06/14/2011 12:03 PM, Jun Zhao wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:32:36 GMT

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