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