W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 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: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:43:06 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|5ae54ac3c9e9fef16bfabc94d977743bo83Dh808l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5045F75A.1000004@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all,
This issue is now closed.
Luc

On 30/05/12 11:06, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

-- 
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 Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:43:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:43:36 GMT