- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:57:10 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 (belated) note that this creates a small precedent, namely that some properties are optional (which implies that some or not), so do we now have an obligation to be specific about that? --Paolo On 6/9/11 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
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 11:57:49 UTC