Re: Proposal on PROV-DM reorganization

A side comment since this relates to the topic of "Pattern".  I think we 
also need to stay away from vernacular that is common place in existing 
software design patterns that are accepted by the larger SE community -- 
namely Gang of 4 and System of Patterns books.  So, I suggest that we do 
not use the words "Chain of Responsibility" anywhere.  This is the name 
of a well-defined pattern; so far as I understand this thread, that's 
not how it's being used within the context of conversation.  I don't 
remember from reviewing the docs anywhere if this exact text "Chain of 
Responsibility" exists in Prov-DM, Prov-O, etc. docs, but we need to 
stay away from "Chain of Responsibility" and use some other text (I've 
seen "Chain of Custody" within provenance context, but realize that it's 
not the same thing -- something like that would be good).


On 5/22/12 8:00 AM, Timothy Lebo 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
>>
>>
>>
>