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: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:20:00 +0100
To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f65852ba-3f7b-446f-9daa-1596eb8beb02@email.android.com>


Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

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

In the Provenance Vocabulary we use the term NonHumanActor; so, maybe "non-human agent" for PROV?

Cheers,
Olaf

>
>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 19:19:14 GMT

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