Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in the past

On Tuesday 14 June 2011 13:29:27 Simon Miles wrote:
> +1 except for the caveat made in the last teleconference, e.g. I might
> be modelling what I expect the provenance of something to be in 10
> years time, in which case the execution is in the past of an imagined
> future, not in the past from now.
> 
> So I would qualify the definition to something like:
>   "the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the
> position of any assertion made about it."

+1 to the proposal with that extension.

Olaf

> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> On 14 June 2011 11:48, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All:
> > 
> > In trying to move towards a definition of process execution, it would be
> > good to get the groups consensus on the notion of process execution
> > being in the past. Namely, the following is proposed from the last
> > telecon:
> > 
> > "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is
> > occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of
> > a process execution is always in the past."
> > 
> > Can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for this proposal via a response
> > to this email message?
> > 
> > The due date for responses is this Thursday before the telecon.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> > ______________________________________________________________________

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:50:48 UTC