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

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

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:14:48 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF205349C22@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Zednik, Stephan T." <zednis@rpi.edu>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
We debated quite a bit for OPM and ended up making agent a separate 'class' because agents appeared to blend being a thing and acting like a process, along with the challenge that artifacts were immutable and agents were not. Given mutable things, and potential interest/use cases where the provenance of agents is of interest, making people and organizations PIL:things that have an agent role in a process seems like a possible/useful approach.

However agents are modeled, I think it is important to have a way to describe their provenance...

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:56 AM
> To: Zednik, Stephan T.
> Cc: Luc Moreau; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition
> 
> 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 15:16:07 GMT

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