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: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:35:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6wjpwy3+-sOrfZc3wGtM=9VABQyG8ns3dVssRM8dztP=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: reza.bfar@oracle.com
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Reza,

> IMHO, it'd be best to just keep it to human vs. non-human agent.
>
> I agree with this also - the DM to have only the above two subtypes of
agents.


Thanks.

Best,
Satya


> Best.
>
> On 2/12/12 3:36 PM, Satya Sahoo 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> 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> 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> 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>  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 Monday, 13 February 2012 15:36:17 GMT

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