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

Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:38:04 -0700
Message-ID: <4FBC4D8C.2030202@ncl.ac.uk>
To: "reza.bfar@oracle.com" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Reza

agreed. The term was used initially when the concept of "responsibility" was proposed, by Yolanda et al. if I remember correctly, 
and then the "chain" part was dropped. What I meant to indicate was a sequence of linked actedOnBehalfOf relations, but yes, the 
term has already a meaning so my bad.  But I hope you get the point of the example.

Best,
  -Paolo



On 5/22/12 10:04 AM, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote:
> A side comment since this relates to the topic of "Pattern".  I think we also need to stay away from vernacular that is common 
> place in existing software design patterns that are accepted by the larger SE community -- namely Gang of 4 and System of Patterns 
> books.  So, I suggest that we do not use the words "Chain of Responsibility" anywhere.  This is the name of a well-defined 
> pattern; so far as I understand this thread, that's not how it's being used within the context of conversation.  I don't remember 
> from reviewing the docs anywhere if this exact text "Chain of Responsibility" exists in Prov-DM, Prov-O, etc. docs, but we need to 
> stay away from "Chain of Responsibility" and use some other text (I've seen "Chain of Custody" within provenance context, but 
> realize that it's not the same thing -- something like that would be good).
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 02:38:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 May 2012 02:39:03 GMT