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

Hi Jun,

I am not understanding your question.  The decisions so far are
listed here:

Regarding "process", which page do you refer to?


On 06/14/2011 12:03 PM, Jun Zhao wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> Are we removing the optional part about duration?
> Also, the concept page also mentions "process". To me, this seems like 
> a terminology issue. Are we going to eliminate the use of process or 
> are we going to have a separate discussion?
> cheers,
> Jun
> On 14/06/11 11:45, Paul Groth 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

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:32:36 UTC