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: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:41:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4F42A1D1.9030502@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
A thought:

   responsible agent
vs
   deterministic agent

?

#g
--

On 12/02/2012 18:04, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Satya,
>
> What's a good name for the class of both hardware + software agent?
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 20:26:46 GMT

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