W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-337 (agent-and-entity): agent should not be a subclass of entity [prov-dm]

From: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:35:31 -0700
Message-ID: <4FB293E3.5000507@oracle.com>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1

On 5/15/12 8:17 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Sorry, for the confusing message.
>
> The text currently says:
>  An agent MAY be a particular type of entity.
>
>
> Instead, I am proposing that we write:
>  An agent MAY be a particular type of entity OR ACTIVITY.
>
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
> On 05/15/2012 04:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Agents are no longer a subclass of entity.
>>
>>
>> The text currently says:
>>  An agent MAY be a particular type of entity or activity.
>>
>>
>> Instead, I am proposing that we write:
>>  An agent MAY be a particular type of entity or activity.
>>
>>
>> In other words, the proposal is that Agent and Activity are not 
>> disjoint classes.
>> This offers flexibility to asserters.  I don't think there has been a 
>> strong case
>> for making those classes disjoint.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> On 04/02/2012 10:53 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-337 (agent-and-entity): agent should not be a subclass of 
>>> entity [prov-dm]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/337
>>>
>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>> Currently, prov-dm defines agent as follows:
>>>
>>> An agent is a type of entity that bears some form of responsibility 
>>> for an activity taking place. An agent is a particular type of 
>>> Entity. This means that the model can be used to express provenance 
>>> of the agents themselves.
>>>
>>> While it is nice to be able to express the provenance of agents, it 
>>> is not obvious to me that agents should always be entities.  In 
>>> fact, they could be activities.
>>>
>>> Consider a collaboration activity, to which several agents ag1, ag2, 
>>> ..., agn are associated. Why can't we see it as an agent too?
>>> activity(collaboration)
>>> wasAssociatedWith(collaboration,agi,contract)
>>>
>>> agent(collaboration)
>>> wasAttributed(nice-piece-of-work,collaboration)
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I would propose the following alternative definition:
>>>
>>>
>>> An agent is something that bears some form of responsibility for an 
>>> activity taking place.
>>>
>>> A given agent may be a particular type of Entity or Activity. This 
>>> means that the model can be used to express provenance of the agents 
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at prov-o, I notice that they have already defined an agent 
>>> as subclass of owl:Thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 17:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 17:36:08 GMT