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 18:45:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6y6bX+cyJtwkz_nwo1pRZE_gFvtmuGgGdTVVwR2DoRiVA@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>
>
>
> Human Agent
> Computing System Agent
> Organizational Agent
>
> Votes?
>
> +1

Luc: I am fine with closing this issue now.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


> 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> 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 <%28203%29%20785-6330>
>>> 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 23:45:50 GMT

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