copycat82 commits plagiarism, along with ignorance. The on-going self-contradictions, the utterly-schizoid nature, were obvious (also) with the macro-gate mess of copycat82. This page points out its ignorance about time.
copycat82 is confused, about time. It claims three mutually-contradictory ideas, at once, with several problems. The claim that relates to the entrance-macros is the claim that any macro/"component" starts as soon as it is enabled, and removes the token(s) immediately after it starts. This, does necessitate those transitions at the start of a subnet, especially those within the entrance-macros, to be zero-wait, although that is not how a Petri net transition is. Even if we assume that copycat82 thinks of timed-transitions, with the special case of only zero-time transitions, there is no indicator in the figures to tell about any transition, whether it is timed. This is part of the copycat82/83 vagueness.
Briefly, there appears to be at least three cases: (1) Nondeterministic-time, (2) zero-wait, and (3) with min-and-max limits, as with time Petri nets (pp.128,133).
The second and third contradict, when copycat82 has expressed all macros/"component"s to start to be executed as soon as enabled (p.60), the claim about time-Petri-nets is degenerate, with min=max=0.
copycat82 is problematic with its (non-)management of time, in context of a verifier/interpreter. It does not tell, how you would do a (deterministic) simulation, without time - in a parallel/concurrent system.
The time-Petri-nets is about when-to-start. It is a self-contradiction to "start immediately" every subnet, but claim "employability" of time-Petri-nets, as copycat82 claims to.
Da80 is fine with time. Da80 had merged the E-net X-transition, with time Petri nets