- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:23:25 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 Looks good to me. Jun On 10/06/2011 10:14, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > > +1 > > khalid > > On 09/06/2011 21:27, Paul Groth wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> In the telecon today we almost reached consensus around the following >> proposal: >> >> "A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval" >> >> However, there were concerns that this meant that it required all >> process executions to specify a duration. >> >> I would like to suggest a reformulation of the proposal as follows: >> >> "A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval. >> Statements denoting this duration are optional." >> >> In order to make progress, can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for >> this proposal? >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 09:23:59 UTC