- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:51:00 -0400
- To: Paolo Ncl <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On May 22, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Paolo Ncl wrote: > Tim > > No, the pattern is multiple actedonBehalfOf relations chained together, possibly with one or more associatedWith relations hanging off the chain and connecting to activities. Something that you may want to write a specific query for as it may tell you more of the story than a relation taken in isolation. Thanks. I'd agree with that. But I think "patterns" should stay out of DM and end up (if anywhere) in the Best Practices. -Tim > > P.Missier - paolo.missier@ncl.ac.uk > > On 22 May 2012, at 08:00, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> >> 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 15:52:11 UTC