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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:06:29 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|6c17790bc59c11b3ca12a1ddef3b2691o4YB6V08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FC5F125.2030701@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all,
I am now proposing to close this issue, pending review.
Regards,
Luc

On 05/15/2012 06:35 PM, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote:
> +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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:07:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:07:02 GMT