anchor.diff:  |===
   |Pros |Cons
   
  -| Simplifies basic lineage
  +| Simplifies extension to current model
   | Multi-hop _via_ cannot be expressed
   
  -| -
  -| Inconsistency of recording.
  -If App1 does not know, or particularly care about, App2 (or vice versa)
  -
  -| Intuitive understanding
  -| -
  -
  -| -
  -| -
  +| Can be incrementally/partially adopted
  +| Yet another way to represent lineage
  +
   |===
   
   <<<
   
   === Layers
   
  -This approach proposes additional layers of flows.  We currently have
  -
  -* logical
  -* physical
  +This approach proposes additional layers of flows.
  +Waltz currently has two layers of flows; logical and physical.
  +Additional layers could be introduced which allow for different views of data movement.
  +An example could be a 'Data at rest' layer which omits all processing-only nodes
  +
   
   
   
  
positive.code: 
  == Overview
  
  * Lineage
  * Ownership
  ** Accountability / Attestation
  * ...
  
  
  == Types of Platforms
  
  
  * _Infrastructure_ platforms, hold or forward the data to the recipient without altering the data content.
  * _Enrichment_ platforms, which may blend data from several sources before it reaches the recipients
  * _Multitenancy_ platforms
  
  <<<
  
  
negative.code: ----
  digraph B {
  
      plat[label="Platform\n:(", color="orange"];
      app1[label="App1", color="green"];
      app2[label="App2", color="green"];
      app3[label="App3", color="green"];
  