- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:33:44 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
0 - I'm happy to proceed with this as a working assumption, but remain unconvinced that it needs to be locked in to the overall model. #g -- 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 13:10:57 UTC