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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-188: Section 5.2.3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:04:27 -1100
Message-ID: <4F37FF2B.4070109@vu.nl>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Satya,

What's a good name for the class of both hardware + software agent?

The key issue is that we need to distinguish between People and Software 
so I this should be kept in the model.

Thanks,
Paul



Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> My suggestion is to:
> a) Either remove software agent or include hardware agent (since both
> occur together).
> b) State the agent subtypes as only examples and not include them as
> part of "core" DM.
>
> Except the above two points, I am fine with closing of this issue.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Satya, Paul, Graham,
>
>     I am proposing not to take any action on this issue, except
>     indicate, as Graham suggested,
>     that these 3 agent types "are common across most anticipated domains
>     of use".
>
>     I am closing this action, pending review.
>     Regards,
>     Luc
>
>
>
>     On 12/07/2011 01:58 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>         PROV-ISSUE-188: Section 5.2.3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>
>         http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/__track/issues/188
>         <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/188>
>
>         Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>         On product: prov-dm
>
>         Hi,
>         The following are my comments for Section 5.2.3 of the PROV-DM
>         as on Nov 28:
>
>         Section 5.2.3:
>         1. "From an inter-operability perspective, it is useful to
>         define some basic categories of agents since it will improve the
>         use of provenance records by applications. There should be very
>         few of these basic categories to keep the model simple and
>         accessible. There are three types of agents in the model:
>         * Person: agents of type Person are people. (This type is
>         equivalent to a "foaf:person" [FOAF])
>         * Organization: agents of type Organization are social
>         institutions such as companies, societies etc. (This type is
>         equivalent to a "foaf:organization" [FOAF])
>         * SoftwareAgent: a software agent is a piece of software."
>         Comment: Why should the WG model only these three types of
>         agents explicitly. What about biological agents (e.g E.coli
>         responsible for mass food poisoning), "hardware" agents (e.g.
>         reconnaissance drones, industrial robots in car assembly line)?
>         The WG should either enumerate all possible agent sub-types (an
>         impractical approach) or just model Agent only without any
>         sub-types. The WG does not explicitly model all possible
>         sub-types of Activity - why should a different approach be
>         adopted for Agent?
>
>         Thanks.
>
>         Best,
>         Satya
>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Professor Luc Moreau
>     Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~__lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2012 18:04:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT