- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:09:33 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Oops. One more important correction. Its been a bad brain to keyboard day... On Feb 20, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > Forgot to include my full thought, :-) > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > >> I have seen usage of the term 'System' to refer to hardware + software. >> >> That's a pretty broad term, and should have an appropriately broad definition. It would cover far more than hardware + software and I would be hesitant to establish any disjointness. >> >> My thoughts on agent convienence classes has not changed, but if we are to include convienance specializations of Agent we should probably be discussing definitions. > > as they apply to our intended distinction. "System" may be an applicable high-level concept that software+hardware can fit into, but it may satisfy the distinction you are trying to make. "System" may be an applicable high-level concept that software+hardware can fit into, but it may ~not~ satisfy the distinction you are trying to make. --Stephan > >> >> A first crack at a definition for system would be "a combination of things (sub components) forming a whole." > > Would such a definition apply at all to the distinction you are trying to make? I think it may be too broad. > > --Stephan > >> >> Is the non-person agent class you want to describe limited to software + hardware? > >> >> --Stephan >> >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> 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 22:10:10 UTC