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

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

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:47:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4E00D947.9040901@gmail.com>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Satya,

So far we have avoided terms like casually because that brings a lot of 
unintended side effects. So it's not really a small change.

cheers
Paul

Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi all,
> I agree with Luc's and Stephan's modified definition with small change:
>
> "A thing that is causally involved in a process execution is an Agent"
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org
> <mailto:GK@ninebynine.org>> wrote:
>
>     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>
>         <mailto: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
>                 <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>>zednis@__rpi.edu
>                 <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu> <mailto: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 17:48:32 GMT

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