- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:28:53 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I am troubled by the presence of these underlying "events" in the DM. Why are they not simply "time instants"? I think it would be fair to consider a ProcessExecution an Event, in which case a proper interval Event is delimited by two time instant Events -- THREE events to describe one? It seems that "events" in DM exist only to delimit ProcessExecutions and the characterization intervals with singular moments in time. If we keep "events" - could there be a description somewhere about why they are called that? I might see an argument that, if a characterization interval ends, SOMETHING would needed to have happened to end it. Thanks, Tim On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Satya, > > With all the proposals that have been approved recently, it's now time to > answer some of the issues you raised. Find answers interleaved. > > I am proposing that this issue can now be closed. > > Best regards, > Luc > > > > > 1. The activity that a process execution expression is a > > representation of has a duration, delimited by its start and its end > > events; hence, it occurs over an interval delimited by two > > events. However, a process execution expression need not mention time > > information, nor duration, because they may not be known. > > > > Issue: Is it possible that event information, similar to time > > information, may not be known? Is it possible to define a PE without > > having knowledge about its start and end events and also its duration > > (delimited by events)? > > Yes, in fact, we don't assert the start/end events.
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 16:29:24 UTC