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 <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:10:18 -0800
Message-Id: <BEEA57FF-0B5F-4B8E-ADFD-233FFADDF52A@oracle.com>
Cc: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, 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>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Fine by me :)

On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> I was wondering if we can somehow have shorter names? Thus: human, computing system, organization ?
> 
> They are all subtypes of agent so should be read as such. We can even include that in the definition.
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 0:45, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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 -
>>> 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
>>> We can modify "System" to "Computing System" which will include both "hardware" and "software".
>>> 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 <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 Wednesday, 15 February 2012 06:11:33 GMT

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