- From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:06:17 +0200
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Paolo, Eventually, we will when get to hardening all this definitions in a model. I think for now were just trying to get terminology and in some cases it's necessary to add things for clarification. thanks, Paul Paolo Missier wrote: > +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 12:06:49 UTC