Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

Folks -

I try to stay muted on most topics, but on the topic of "Pattern", I 
think we need to be very careful and rigorous and I'm in agreement with 
Paolo.  To the practicing software engineer, a "Pattern" means something 
very exact.  References can be found in Taylor & Medvidovic, Gang of 4, 
Gang of 5 (System of Patterns) etc. which are considered somewhat bibles 
for developers.  Providing a new interpretation of the word "Pattern" 
based on its definition in the English dictionary, IMHO, is 
counter-productive to Prov adoption.

So, to reiterate, I am in full agreement with Paolo.

Best.

On 5/22/12 6:09 AM, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Graham
>
> see below
>
> On 5/21/12 11:34 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> 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?
> I explained above my understanding of the term pattern. I also 
> invoking a OD definition is of limited value, as it does not carry 
> with it our specific context. If you use UML, then I believe you are 
> inevitably using the term "pattern" in /that/ context.  (as I am sure 
> you know the key reference to SE patterns in fact comes from 
> architecture:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language)
> I have no desire or time to start another exchange of opinions on a 
> loosely defined term, but for all it's worth:
>
> We never until now felt the need to introduce the term "pattern" and 
> this has never been discussed. I don't see how it can just be added 
> now, and why  Also, we have decided to use UML as minimal grounding of 
> our concepts, at least for illustrative purposes. The term "pattern" 
> inevitably takes on the definition that comes with this particular 
> context. 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).
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>