- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:34:40 +0100
- 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. Paolo, 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? #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 >> > >> > >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:49:41 UTC