- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:24:29 +0200
- To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 11:25:05 UTC
+1 2011/6/13 James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> > +1 > > --James > > > On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:27 PM, 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 >> >> >> > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > >
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 11:25:05 UTC