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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:42:28 -0600
Message-Id: <2E9B29BD-6CF3-4E26-B322-509D0A55B953@rpi.edu>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
I agree with the rephrasing.  I do not want to suggest a Role concept in this discussion and highly prefer the term 'status' for this definition.

--Stephan

On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Stephan,
> 
> Can we phrase your proposal as follows:
> 
> Agent is the status of a thing actively involved in a process execution.
> 
> The nature of involvement is defined with Control/Participation/etc
> 
> Luc
> 
> On 21/06/11 07:37, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> To answer Luc's question I originally intended to say that I thought an agent can be defined independently of process execution and I agreed that an agent should be a node whose relationship to a process execution should be defined by a control/participation/influence(?) edge.
>> 
>> As I thought about it a bit more I began to wonder if agent was better described as a role (active participant) a thing takes in the context of some specific action (in this case a process execution).  An agent is definitely a thing, but is that thing always an agent?  Or is it an agent within the context/scope of the act it has participated in?  
>> 
>> A thing assumes the role of agent when actively participating in a process execution?
>> 
>> I think I am leaning towards making 'agent' status of a thing dependent upon active participation in a process execution.
>> 
>> --Stephan
>> 
>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:28 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Reiterating a previous comment I made, can an Agent be defined independently of process execution?
>>> 
>>> We can use the definitions of Control/Participation to define an agent's involvement in process execution.
>>> 
>>> If we see agents/things/process executions as nodes and Control/Generation/... as edges of a graph,
>>> it would be nice if nodes could be defined independently of edges.
>>> 
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21/06/11 02:33, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Paul and Stephan,
>>>> In both your definitions, what criteria distinguishes an "agent" from a "process" - in terms of "do stuff"/"active role or produces a specified effect"?
>>>> 
>>>> Reviewing the candidate definitions of Agents, I see that Jun's, Khalid's and my definitions use an explicit reference to a process (execution).
>>>> 
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Satya
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>> I like this definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary because it ties in nicely with provenance
>>>> 
>>>> "A person on thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect."
>>>> 
>>>> --Stephan
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > Hi All,
>>>> >
>>>> > What would people think of just adopting FOAF's definition of Agent for now:
>>>> >
>>>> > The Agent class is the class of agents; things that do stuff. A well known sub-class is Person, representing people. Other kinds of agents include Organization and Group.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > thanks,
>>>> > Paul
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 07:41:59 GMT

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