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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:46:42 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0ad031ae736ce2828191a62ee2fd16b4o1CEkl08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F392252.1030403@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Olaf Hartig <hartig@informatik.hu-berlin.de>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jim,
So what's the concrete proposal?
Luc

On 02/13/2012 01:45 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> I think Satya's point is that, while we shouldn't tie in 
> domain-specific constructs, we should be supportive of those domains. 
> If there is something in a generalized model that doesn't work for a 
> particular domain, then it's not generalized across that domain.
>
> I think that what Satya is looking for is the conjunction of artifact 
> and agent (ArtificialAgent). This *could* be extended in domain models 
> by adding an Artifact class and conjoining that and Agent, but I think 
> his point is that a software agent is also an ArtificialAgent, and 
> it's not good modeling practice to have to extend a general model from 
> a non-leaf, for instance, by declaring a superclass for SoftwareAgent.
>
> I would argue that scientific instruments are more than just software 
> agents. In fact, since we're often talking about embedded software, 
> the software itself can't work without the specialized hardware. For 
> our purposes, it's the two together that make the agent, not just the 
> software. I think this is important for the domain of science 
> provenance, which I would hope is general enough to not be considered 
> "domain specific".
>
> Jim
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Satya,
>
>     Your message is clear: you refer to the biomedical domain.  To me,
>     this is domain specific.
>
>     Whereas,  "There are three types of agents in the model since they
>     are common across most anticipated domain of use".  Furthermore,
>     we say It is not an exhaustive list.
>
>     I would suggest that the best practice example should create a new
>     class of agent that addresses a domain specific need.
>
>     This would be much more compelling, it would show we invite
>     communities to define such subclasses, and it would show how to do it.
>
>     Do you want to help craft such an example?
>
>
>     Professor Luc Moreau
>     Electronics and Computer Science
>     University of Southampton
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ
>     United Kingdom
>
>     On 12 Feb 2012, at 23:36, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu
>     <mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:
>
>>     Hi Luc,
>>
>>
>>         Of course we can talk about routers.
>>
>>     Exactly - there are many provenance-related scenarios in variety
>>     of application domains. Adding software agent to DM core will
>>     make it harder for users in say clinical research (majority use
>>     paper-based record keeping), bench research developing new
>>     vaccine targets (not using in-silico approaches) etc to adopt the
>>     model.
>>     Alternatively, is there a reason not to include both software and
>>     hardware agents? Is there any downside to include hardware agent,
>>     which is not there for software agent?
>>
>>         But have had a use case, discussed by this wg and including
>>         routers?
>>
>>     Not sure what you mean - the wg is not discussing any "official"
>>     use case? We are using anecdotal scenarios to explain PROV
>>     constructs and not to drive creation of new constructs.
>>
>>     There are many biomedical use cases from XG and W3C HCLS group
>>     (e.g. mass spectrometer "hardware" and virus "biological" agents)?
>>
>>     A suggestion is to have two subtypes of agent (loosely from the
>>     provenance vocabulary approach)- biological and non-biological
>>     agents (hardware, software agents, organizations etc.).
>>
>>     What do you think?
>>
>>     Best,
>>     Satya
>>
>>         Professor Luc Moreau
>>         Electronics and Computer Science
>>         University of Southampton
>>         Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>         United Kingdom
>>
>>         On 12 Feb 2012, at 22:53, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu
>>         <mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>>         Hi Luc,
>>>
>>>>             Nonhuman agent would imply other non software agents
>>>>             too.  It does not capture the intent.
>>>
>>>         Is the intent to model only software agents?
>>>
>>>
>>>>             Software is particular relevant for the web. I don't
>>>>             see the problem with it. What use case do you want to
>>>>             support Satya? 
>>>
>>>         From my original mail on Dec 07, 2011:
>>>
>>>         >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?
>>>
>>>         "hardware" is equally relevant "for the web" (e.g. "router").
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>         Satya
>>>
>>>>             I had the feeling that we had reached agreement two
>>>>             months ago on this matter, and I don't see any new
>>>>             evidence to reopen the debate,
>>>
>>>
>>>             Ultimately we have to be pragmatic and move on.
>>>
>>>
>>>             Professor Luc Moreau
>>>             Electronics and Computer Science
>>>             University of Southampton
>>>             Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>             United Kingdom
>>>
>>>             On 12 Feb 2012, at 20:23, "Satya Sahoo"
>>>             <satya.sahoo@case.edu <mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>             I agree with Olaf's suggestion - its effectively
>>>>             captures our intent.
>>>>
>>>>             Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>             Best,
>>>>             Satya
>>>>
>>>>             On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Paul Groth
>>>>             <p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 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
>>>>                     <mailto: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>
>>>>                             <mailto: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>
>>>>                             <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>>>>                             Southampton SO17 1BJ email:
>>>>                             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>>
>>>>                             United Kingdom
>>>>                             http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~__lavm
>>>>                             <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7E__lavm>
>>>>                             <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>                             <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jim McCusker
> Programmer Analyst
> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
> Yale School of Medicine
> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
> http://tw.rpi.edu

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 14:48:32 GMT

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