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: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:25:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6xXczpTVTHoa0g-pG6-gNP62T2==qJ85TpFO3R+9Z4a4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stian,
No, it could not be voted on during the last call.

Best,
Satya

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Did we agree on this in the end? (Issue has been closed)
>
> The OWL file has now prov:Organization, prov:person and prov:System
>
>
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html#term-Agent
> has Human, Organization and ComputingSystem.
>
>
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-Agent
> has Human, Organization and SoftwareAgent
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent file does not reflect
> the OWL change. Whoever changed the OWL file - please update (at least
> the right-hand-side) on the ProvRDF page. This is the process we
> agreed in F2F2.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 22:09, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
> > 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>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 15:26:19 GMT

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