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: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:58:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4F3B73CE.40401@vu.nl>
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 GMT

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