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

Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:34:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4FBB3380.1010607@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 21/05/2012 14:29, Paolo Missier wrote:
> - importantly what are these /patterns/?? these have always been constructs,
> relations, etc. Patterns to me are particular compositions of these that are
> designed to achieve a particular effect. I think these are not patterns.


To my mind, that they are more than just constructs, relations, etc. is a key to 
understanding how provenance may be approached.  Maybe you don't like the term 
"patterns" because it has other software engineering usage?

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?


>> 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
>> >
>> >
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:49:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:14 UTC