- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:21:41 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 makes sense Simon On 10 June 2011 10:25, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > +1 > > Looks good to me. > > Jun > > On 10/06/2011 10:14, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> khalid >> >> On 09/06/2011 21:27, 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 >>> >>> >> >> > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 10:22:08 UTC