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: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:09:33 -0700
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>
Message-Id: <1F6AE53A-2AF7-4180-92F6-3EDD28776769@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
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 GMT

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