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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:33:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4DF75528.60808@ninebynine.org>
To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
0 - I'm happy to proceed with this as a working assumption, but remain 
unconvinced that it needs to be locked in to the overall model.

#g
--

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 13:10:57 GMT

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