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

+1 for all 3

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> +1 for all 3
>
> --Stephan
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>  Hi reza,
>
>  I gather we are still keeping organisations.  So, does it mean 3
> subtypes of agents:
> - person,
> - system
> - organisation?
>
>  Is there support for this proposal?
>
>  Luc
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
>
> On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:12, "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>   One more follow-up.
>
> It may be more clear to go with "System" vs. "Human" Agents which is what
> folks have done with various UML extensions and UML diagrams such as
> use-case and sequence diagrams.  Luc is right in that Non-Human, in our
> provenance context, can refer to things like institutions, etc.
>
> SO, I propose "System" and "Human" actors.
>
> On 2/13/12 7:43 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>
> Hi Luc,
>
>   Your message is clear: you refer to the biomedical domain.  To me, this
>> is domain specific.
>>
>>
>  The reference is not only to biomedical domain, we can easily create
> scenarios for space exploration (from Reza's mail), oil field exploration
> etc. As you remember, we have scores of examples scenarios in the XG.
>
>
>
>
>>  Whereas,  "There are three types of agents in the model since they are
>> common across most anticipated domain of use".
>>
>
>  We seem to going around in circles - first you say biomedical
> applications is domain specific, but then justify software agent for "most
> anticipated domain of use", which is in other words "domain-specific"?
>
>  Best,
> Satya
>
>   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> 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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu