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: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4DF756E0.2070307@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc,

This is related to the definition proposed by Satya:
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptProcessExecution#Definition_by_Satya

And sorry, I didn't realized the original email was sent by Paul not by you.

cheers,

Jun

On 14/06/11 13:31, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:41:52 GMT

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