- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:38:04 -0700
- To: "reza.bfar@oracle.com" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 02:38:55 UTC
Reza agreed. The term was used initially when the concept of "responsibility" was proposed, by Yolanda et al. if I remember correctly, and then the "chain" part was dropped. What I meant to indicate was a sequence of linked actedOnBehalfOf relations, but yes, the term has already a meaning so my bad. But I hope you get the point of the example. Best, -Paolo On 5/22/12 10:04 AM, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote: > 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). >
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 02:38:55 UTC