- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:19:08 -0500
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TxM5Hh4D27J6R6fAi8hss3Yjm8bj_1uULa1asQ8awh3w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:48 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > ** > I think "instantaneous event" is clearest among options so far. It may be > clumsy to always say "instantaneous event" - instead it might be easiest to > say up front (and wherever there is potential for confusion) that we > consider events to be instantaneous. The term "durative" can be used for > events that have a duration. > This is the current language, but there are a number of us that object to it, since natural events are durative. The recording of an instant as having marked that event might be instantaneous, but superseding "event" with this special, artificial case isn't a good thing. We can just as easily use the term "event" to denote what we now call "activity", where we say that an event is a temporally extended perdurant, which would preclude misunderstandings from the process algebra community. Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 00:19:57 UTC