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: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:42:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6xVDAgpgeNCUsmKKZy+01GXGCHYT_UR9c6=efXO37_Nhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: reza.bfar@oracle.com
Cc: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Reza,

> Please note the following -
>
>    1. I'm not trying to model something domain specific.  I'm using the
>    domain specific requirement as a test-case.  There was a long thread with
>    Yolanda, etc. on Agent, etc.  This is probably a bit of an extension now,
>    but there is also overlap
>    2. We can modify "System" to "Computing System" which will include
>    both "hardware" and "software".
>    3. We can use the therm "Human Agent" as opposed to a Person if you're
>    opposed to "Person"
>
> So, do you prefer:
>
> Human Agent
> Computing System Agent
> Organizational Agent
>
> These labels are much more intuitive. Thanks!

I will defer discussion on test-case since it does not have a bearing on
our making progress here.

Best,
Satya


> Thanks
>
> On 2/14/12 3:28 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>
> Hi Luc and Reza,
> There are issues with making Person as subtype of Agent, since we refer to
> a Person in many contexts where the Person is not an Agent (e.g. Bob the
> person is 50 years old - there is no notion of responsibility to identify
> Bob as an Agent in this assertion).
>
> Reza: Can you please suggest a definition for "System"? In many contexts
> System is the same as Organization (e.g. Esurance is an online auto
> insurance company and a "system").
>
>  Trying to model agents from a domain-specific scenario (eRecords, audit)
> in the "core" DM will lead to elements that will be incompatible with
> requirements of other domains, hence my original suggestion was to move the
> subtypes of agent to an "extensibility" or "common elements" sections of
> the DM.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Best,
> Satya
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>> +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 <%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> 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
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 23:42:49 GMT

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