W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:42:11 -0400
Cc: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B388037B-E0FE-43BE-A3BC-5FFD737F7335@rpi.edu>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>

On May 22, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Paolo Missier wrote:

> Graham
> ...


> The UML diagrams in the document are not patterns. They define a data model, which consists of classes and associations. These are all primitives, including the extensions. /To my mind/ :-), patterns belong in a "provenance cookbook" and describe appropriate combinations of classes and associations as I tried to express earlier (above).

+1

-Tim

> 
> I don't think this is worth discussing further but I am really not comfortable with introducing this term out of the blue at this stage of the editing process.  I hope you don't feel too strongly about it.
> 
> -Paolo
> 
>> 
>> To my mind, there *are* key patterns/structures that underpin use of most of the
>> provenance constructs and relations, etc.  Having these structures clearly
>> presented provides a developer with a mental framework which they can use to
>> organize the more detailed and specialized constructs as and when they are
>> required, and also helps them to understand how new specializations can be
>> introduced for the needs of particular applications.
>> 
>> Thus, I think the core elements do form a pattern in exactly a leading sense
>> defined by the Oxford dictionary:
>> "an arrangement or design regularly found in comparable objects: the house had
>> been built on the usual pattern" -- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pattern
>> 
>> So I've taken to using the phrase "core patterns" for these because I find it
>> usefully evocative.  But "core structures" could also work for me.  Maybe
>> there's some other term that works as well?
>> 
>> #g
>> --
>> 
>> 
>>>> On May 20, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> During last week's telcon [1] the chairs were tasked to come-up with a
>>>>> proposal that tried to reflect consensus on reorganization of the data
>>>>> model. This would take into account both Graham's proposal [2] as well
>>>>> as the WG discusion and prior agreements.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We've come up with with the following proposal:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_ConsensusProposal
>>>>> 
>>>>> We hope this reflects a consensus with the working group and something
>>>>> we could proceed on. Is this a good foundation to proceed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Paul
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-17
>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 13:43:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 13:43:25 GMT