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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:56:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4E004094.6090805@ninebynine.org>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Stephan Zednik wrote:
 > A thing assumes the role of agent when actively participating in a
 > process execution?

*If* the concept of an agent is needed, then I think this approach is useful. 
I.e. it's similar to the view discussion, more easily captured in relations.

But I think someone (Jim?) made a comment that the whole notion of an agent may 
not be needed if some of the other concepts can be loosened up a little.

#g
--

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 
> <mailto: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 < 
>>> <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>zednis@rpi.edu <mailto: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 09:12:01 GMT

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