- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:04 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc, This is related to the definition proposed by Satya: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptProcessExecution#Definition_by_Satya And sorry, I didn't realized the original email was sent by Paul not by you. cheers, Jun On 14/06/11 13:31, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Jun, > > I am not understanding your question. The decisions so far are > listed here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/AgreementOnConcepts > > Regarding "process", which page do you refer to? > > Thanks, > Luc > > 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 >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:41:52 UTC