- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:58:54 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- CC: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, "reza.bfar@oracle.com" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Personally, I'm happy with what you suggest Jim or what I suggested. I just want simple names. I think we all agree that we want these three categories and we agree that it's not a closed set. Hopefully, we can now reach consensus. cheers, Paul Jim McCusker wrote: > Why not just: > > Human > System > Organization > > ? > > System would include devices, autonomous or not, as well as computing > systems. Or is that opening up another can of worms? We will need to > make sure to specify that this isn't a closed set, we haven't covered > everything. > > Jim > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 - >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Jim McCusker > Programmer Analyst > Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics > Yale School of Medicine > james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330 > 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 -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 09:02:12 UTC