W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-337 (agent-and-entity): agent should not be a subclass of entity [prov-dm]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:32:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpezJSM8H1rubnxraZhJkzKsMtNMho7HfjyRT4UKetfMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

Following up, it seems that the point would to be to ensure that
people have to say whether their agent is an entity or activity.

Is that a correct summary?

My feeling is that it's one of the three core classes and should be
able to stand on its own but in order to describe an agents provenance
you need to make it either an entity or an activity.

Thanks
Paul

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 05:53 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> While it is nice to be able to express the provenance of agents, it
>> is not obvious to me that agents should always be entities.  In
>> fact, they could be activities.
>
> I could probably be convinced with a clear use case.  I've tried to
> come up with something myself, but can't do so, I can always turn them
> into entities.
>
>> Consider a collaboration activity, to which several agents ag1, ag2,
>> ..., agn are associated. Why can't we see it as an agent too?
>
> I agree with Simon:
>
>> For the sake of explanation, I think we could find a better example
>> of a responsible activity than collaboration. An act of
>> collaboration is an activity, but a collaboration itself could be
>> considered an entity.
>
> Curt
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2012 11:33:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT