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 08:20:52 -1100
Message-ID: <4F381114.5010807@vu.nl>
To: Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Olaf,

That seems reasonable to me. I wonder what the group thinks.

cheers,
Paul

Olaf Hartig wrote:
>
> 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 19:21:23 GMT

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