W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: whine about dctypes:Software

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:52:59 +0100
Message-ID: <50F6DAEB.3000508@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
I'd rather go for FOAF whenever possible (Agent, Person and Organization) and pick what's not there from other vocabularies (PROV is of course a good one).

I don't want to downplay PROV, but FOAF is better-known, probably users will have heard about it even before they hear that OA could be a good ontology for their needs. It It would sub-optimal to present them with classes from other vocabularies. More than having a nice set of classes that come from the same vocabulary.

Besides, FOAF is greatly avoiding semantic over-commitment. Nothing can possibly beat a definition like 'Something is a Person if it is a person. We don't nitpic about whether they're alive, dead, real, or imaginary.'!

I'm not saying that PROV would have a definition that doesn't match very well its own purposes - and perhaps the prov:Person is strictly equivalent to foaf:Person. But usually PROV is quite tight semantically (which is also good for their case), and I would hate that users spend 10 minutes checking the definition there, while there wouldn't have been any issue with FOAF.
In fact I take it as a good hint that even I don't feel like checking it right now: you'll probably know by now that I love checking models in details ;-)

Oh, OK, I've checked. I've even found that the PROV doc has something like that:
:derek
    a foaf:Person, prov:Agent;
at http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

And I don't find an equivalent class mapping between foaf:Person and prov:Person at http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o

Antoine


> I don't mind that for general consistency.
>
> Paolo
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     We could use those three classes? So prov:Person, prov:Organization,
>     prov;softwareAgent plus the other properties from foaf ?
>     That seems more consistent than the current situation.
>
>     Opinions?
>
>     Rob
>
>     On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>     <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk <mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>      > PROV defines prov:SoftwareAgent [1] which might be appropriate. There
>      > are also prov:Organization and prov;Person.
>      >
>      > In the PROV-Dublin Core Terms mapping we make dct:Agent
>      > owl:equivalentClass prov:Agent. I think it should also be equivalent
>      > to at foaf:Agent, but we've not formally stated that anywhere.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#SoftwareAgent
>      > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dc/
>      >
>      > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> Hi Bob, Paolo,
>      >>
>      >> Yes, we had the exact same discussion last week :) The conclusion was that
>      >> the inference of Agent-ness can be drawn based on the range of
>      >> oa:annotatedBy / oa:serializedBy, or the domain of the various foaf
>      >> properties. So requiring the assertion to be explicit was unnecessary.
>      >>
>      >> The options seem to be:
>      >> * Status quo, but make it explicit in the description of the Provenance
>      >> Agents section
>      >> * Create our own SoftwareAgent subClass of foaf:Agent
>      >> * Convince Dan to add one to foaf
>      >>
>      >> Dan?
>      >>
>      >> Rob
>      >>
>      >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com <mailto:paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>>
>      >> wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>> Hi Bob,
>      >>> we have been discussing that issues when we picked that type
>      >>> and we felt a little uncomfortable as well.
>      >>>
>      >>> In the past, personally, I've been extending FOAF with some classes and
>      >>> properties.
>      >>> That is the other option I see. It would be our class though.
>      >>>
>      >>> Paolo
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com <mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com>> wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I guess this issue is in the current core also.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> In http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/core.html#ProvAgents it
>      >>>> is proposed that dctypes:Software be used to type a software agent.
>      >>>> One problem is that dctypesSoftware is not a subtype of foaf:Agent,
>      >>>> thereby requiring(?) that a foaf:Agent type also be asserted on any
>      >>>> Agent of type dctype:Software.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I don't find this inherently improper, but I'm uncomfortable about an
>      >>>> asymmetry between the Person and Software cases. I don't have a better
>      >>>> idea though, and wonder why the FOAF community hasn't offered such a
>      >>>> subclass.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> We also would often need to have Software as the object of
>      >>>> oa:annotatedBy. In addition to humans, we have Kepler workflows
>      >>>> producing annotations autonomously.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Bob Morris
>      >>>>
>      >>>> --
>      >>>> Robert A. Morris
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
>      >>>> UMASS-Boston
>      >>>> 100 Morrissey Blvd
>      >>>> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>      >>>>
>      >>>> IT Staff
>      >>>> Filtered Push Project
>      >>>> Harvard University Herbaria
>      >>>> Harvard University
>      >>>>
>      >>>> email: morris.bob@gmail.com <mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com>
>      >>>> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
>      >>>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
>      >>>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram <http://www.cs.umb.edu/%7Eram>
>      >>>> ===
>      >>>> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
>      >>>> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
>      >>>> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
>      >>>> Harvard University.
>      >>>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> --
>      >>> Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
>      >>> http://www.paolociccarese.info/
>      >>> Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
>      >>> Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
>      >>> Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
>      >>> +1-857-366-1524 <tel:%2B1-857-366-1524> (mobile) +1-617-768-8744 <tel:%2B1-617-768-8744> (office)
>      >>>
>      >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the
>      >>> addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
>      >>> to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
>      >>> any other party without the permission of the sender.
>      >>> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
>      >>> immediately.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>      > School of Computer Science
>      > The University of Manchester
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
> http://www.paolociccarese.info/
> Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
> Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
> Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
> +1-857-366-1524 (mobile) +1-617-768-8744 (office)
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s), may contain information that is considered
> to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to any other party without the permission of the sender.
> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:53:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:53:32 GMT