W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Proposals to vote on related to 'event': deadline Dec 14th midnight GMT

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:19:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TxM5Hh4D27J6R6fAi8hss3Yjm8bj_1uULa1asQ8awh3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
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 McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 00:19:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC