- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:41:05 +0000
- 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 UTC