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

Re: whine about dctypes:Software

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:03:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGo2y+6WZMruGwWxxAjE4U06OREHHoukG+T-d5M1N8QWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
An argument in favor of PROV:

PROV is a recognized W3C standard, whereas FOAF is a de facto standard
by benefit of being first to market.

That said, an argument in favor of FOAF:

You need prov:SoftwareAgent much less frequently than you would need
foaf:Person.  If you don't record type of the serializedBy agent, then
you wouldn't need both namespaces, thus making it simpler.

Of the choice between reusing prov:SoftwareAgent and minting
oa:SoftwareAgent, I prefer re-use.

Rob

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
> Antoine,
> FOAF has always been our first pick, we are on the same page for that.
> The issue came up when talking about Software Agents, what do we do there?
>
> We can certainly say:
> :paolo a foaf:Person, prov:Agent;
>
> But for a software agent we would have:
> :tool a prov:SoftwareAgent
> with no link to FOAF as PROV does not link them.
> Are we happy with this?
>
> The other option would be:
> :tool a oa:SoftwareAgent (subclass of foaf:Agent).
>
> Paolo
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 19:03:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2013 19:03:46 GMT