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: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:43:34 -0800
Message-ID: <4F3AF1A6.9070501@oracle.com>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
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>
Excellent.  Thanks.  So, I guess the modified proposal is:

Human Agent
Computing System Agent
Organizational Agent

Votes?

On 2/14/12 3:42 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> 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
>>     <mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>         +1 for all 3
>>
>>
>>         On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Stephan Zednik
>>         <zednis@rpi.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>                 <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 <tel:%28203%29%20785-6330>
>>         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
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 23:44:20 GMT

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