- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:00:15 -0400
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On May 22, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/22/12 6:42 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> 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 > to clarify the distinction in my mind: "association" and "responsibility" are relations (or associations), "chain of responsibility" is a pattern. What about Attribution? By "chain of responsibility", do you mean actedOnBehalfOf? If so, I disagree. The responsibility between two agents is a relation just as "association" and "attribution" are between an agent and an Activity or Entity, respectively. I'm a bit confused. -Tim > > -Paolo > > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:01:21 UTC