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

RE: PROV-ISSUE-520: Data Model Section 5.3.1 [prov-dm]

From: Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D. <Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:21:35 +0000
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <76A706C559A90249BA321EE35470B85701E283@MSGPEXCEI12A.mfad.mfroot.org>
Hi Paul,

Thanks for the RDF example.  However, as I am considering PROV for use within a clinical environment, my implementation would be relational and most likely object-oriented.  (In fact, this is the primary motivation for my focus on the DM doc.)  In that case, will I have to perform two separate queries to find instances of the person as both an entity and as an agent?

More to the point, I am concerned that giving users the freedom to instanciate the same "thing" in multiple ways will pose interoperability and aggregation problems later on.

Thanks,
Bob
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgroth@gmail.com [mailto:pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
> Paul Groth
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 2:04 PM
> To: Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D.
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-520: Data Model Section 5.3.1 [prov-dm]
> 
> Hi Robert
> 
> Hmm... in RDF speak you would ask for something like
> 
> select * where {ex:Jim rdf:type ?type}
> 
> you would get back that Bob is both an entity and an agent.
> 
> then if you wanted to find the cases where ex:Jim was only an agent
> then you would write
> 
> select * where {ex:Jim rdf:type prov:Agent. ex:Jim ?p ?o}
> 
> so this would work fine...
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D.
> <Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I understand the distinction PROV makes between entities and agents,
> > regarding responsibility.  However, I am concerned 
> (confused?) that this
> > might make it difficult to implement consistently, which 
> will ultimately
> > hinder interoperability.
> >
> > For example, let's say I define a person as an entity 
> (because that person
> > bears no responsibility in the provenance assertions I 
> publish) but a
> > colleague defines the same person as an agent.  If I wanted 
> to query my
> > provenance system for the person in question, will I have 
> to perform two
> > separate queries to find instances of the person as both an 
> entity and as an
> > agent?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: public-prov-wg-request@listhub.w3.org
> > [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@listhub.w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Luc Moreau
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:34 AM
> > To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-520: Data Model Section 5.3.1 [prov-dm]
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have drafted a response to this issue on the wiki at:
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISS
> UE-520_.28Person.2FOrganization.2FSoftwareAgent.29
> > I copy the text below for your convience.
> >
> > Feedback, suggestions welcome.
> > Luc
> >
> >
> > ISSUE-520 (Person/Organization/SoftwareAgent)
> >
> > Original email:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0110.html
> > Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/520
> > Group Response:
> >
> > The reason why the WG introduced agents in the PROV model 
> is to be able to
> > assign responsibility for an activity taking place, for the 
> existence of an
> > entity, or for another agent's activity.
> > For inter-operability reason, the WG also believed it is 
> useful to define
> > commonly encountered types of agents: Person, SoftwareAgent, and
> > Organization. Agents of type prov:Person are people responsible for
> > something; agents of type prov:SoftwareAgent are running software
> > responsible for something; etc
> > Given this, it is not appropriate to make 
> Person/SoftwareAgent/Organization
> > subtypes of Entity, since entities by default do not bear 
> responsibility in
> > the PROV model. It is the notion of prov:Agent that carries 
> responsibility,
> > in PROV.
> > If one wishes to introduce a type of person, as an entity, without
> > associating any responsibility, then there are ontologies, 
> outside PROV,
> > which allow for that. FOAF concepts such as foaf:Person, 
> foaf:Organization
> > may be relevant. With these, one can write entity(e,
> > [prov:type='foaf:Person'])
> >
> > References:
> >
> > foaf:Person: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person
> > foaf:Organization: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Organization
> >
> > References:
> > Proposed changes: none
> > Original author's acknowledgement:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/09/2012 09:47, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> >
> > PROV-ISSUE-520: Data Model Section 5.3.1   [prov-dm]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/520
> >
> > Raised by: Luc Moreau
> > On product: prov-dm
> >
> >
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_5.3.1
> >
> > ISSUE-463
> >
> > Given their definitions, Entities (or Activities) act as Agents for
> > Activities. Since Person, Software, and Organization all 
> fit the definition
> > of Entity, I believe they should be specializations of 
> Entity rather than
> > Agent, which is a role that Entities can play in a given context.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 19:21:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:19 UTC