W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-4 (define-agent): Definition for Concept 'Agent' [Provenance Terminology]

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:54:30 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinnvF6mqXbpcb3EcjN7TETbNi+tCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jun,
>I might participate in a WG telcom, but I am not the one who performs the
telcom, the >chairs should be. But if I participates in a play, it's very
likely that I am one of the agents >performing the play.
I am not sure there is big difference between the two - if you were not a
participant in the WG telcon instance, it would affect the telcon (maybe for
achieving quorum). Hence, in that sense it would be same as participating in
a play.

>I thought it is similar to Satya's "is linked to", but he emphasizes the
direction of the >relationship, which puzzled me and I cannot further
clarify it.
I explicitly mentioned direction since it defines the property's
interpretation (for example, agent cannot have a process as a participant).

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 07/06/11 23:02, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>
>> Hi Luc, Khalid, all,
>>  > Can an agent be defined independently of processes?
>> I agree with Khalid here.
>>
>
> +1. I agree that an agent could exist without having actually initiated an
> execution, even though it should have the ability to do it.
>
>
>
>>  > agent   is linked to       process execution (Satya)
>> I would actually put it the other way:
>> process (execution) has participant agent
>>
>> where "has participant" corresponds to the provenance concept (property)
>> "participation" - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptParticipation
>>
>> The participation notion is more generic than control, since an agent
>> may also be participating in a process without controlling it. For
>> example, temperature/precipitation sensor.
>>
>
>
> My "is involved in" is more lax than Khalid's "controls". I thought it is
> similar to Satya's "is linked to", but he emphasizes the direction of the
> relationship, which puzzled me and I cannot further clarify it.
>
> I think I can almost read
>
>
> agent          is involved in              process execution
>
> as
>
> agent          participates in             process execution
>
> IMO, in some situations "participates in" should be more generic than
> "performs", which is more generic than "controls". I might participate in a
> WG telcom, but I am not the one who performs the telcom, the chairs should
> be. But if I participates in a play, it's very likely that I am one of the
> agents performing the play.
>
> In the telcom example, one performs the telcom should also be the one
> controlling the telcom. But if I perform in the play, I don't control the
> play (well, somehow); the director should be the one more having the control
> role than me.
>
> So, in conclusion, I think my general rule applies, but they might be
> interchangeable in certain circumstances.
>
> cheers,
>
> Jun
>
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>> Satya
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Khalid Belhajjame
>> <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk <mailto:Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Luc,
>>
>>
>>        1. Can an agent be defined independently of processes?
>>
>>
>>    Yes. In principle, an agent can be associated with zero or multiple
>>    process executions.
>>
>>        2. You are using various verbs relating agents to process
>> execution:
>>
>>        agent   controls            process execution  (Khalid)
>>
>>    When I used the verb "control", I guess I was thinking of situations
>>    in which the agent:
>>    - initiates a process execution and/or
>>    - terminates a process execution
>>
>>
>>        agent   is involved in    process execution (Jun)
>>
>>    Jun also used the verb perform, which I guess refer to situations in
>>    which the process is manual, and it is the responsibility of the
>>    agent to perform it, e.g., baking bread.
>>
>>    Thanks, khalid
>>
>>
>>        agent   is linked to       process execution (Satya)
>>
>>        Can these verbs be clarified further and distinguished?
>>
>>        Cheers,
>>        Luc
>>
>>
>>        On 06/06/11 19:38, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>>
>>
>>            Hi,
>>
>>            I added a definition of the concept "agent".
>>
>>            Definition: An agent is a (physical or digital) entity that
>>            controls one or multiple process executions
>>
>>            - The newspaper, the blogger and the government portal are
>>            examples of agents
>>
>>            I would prefer to use the term “controller” instead of
>>            “agent”. To me, the term “agent” is a bit vague.
>>
>>            Thanks, khalid
>>
>>            On 20/05/2011 08:04, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>>            wrote:
>>
>>                PROV-ISSUE-4 (define-agent): Definition for Concept
>>                'Agent' [Provenance Terminology]
>>
>>                http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/4
>>
>>                Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>                On product: Provenance Terminology
>>
>>                The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept 'Agent'
>>                as a core concept of the provenance interchange language
>>                to be standardized (see
>>                http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter).
>>
>>                What term do we adopt for the concept 'Agent'?
>>                How do we define the concept 'Agent'?
>>                Where does concept 'Agent' appear in ProvenanceExample?
>>                Which provenance query requires the concept 'Agent'?
>>
>>                Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptAgent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 15:54:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT