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

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

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:44:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRo7mWBF_wgDMcWEhYqcYw68EdiEHOAXMshRbbqQAR=K4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi

I'm happy with the response but is this something we can add to the FAQ. Namely

Q: When should I use prov:Agent and its subtypes?
prov:Agent assigns responsibility. ......

This could be marked in the proposed change.

What do people think?

Thanks
Paul

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have drafted a response to this issue on the wiki at:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-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 Tuesday, 25 September 2012 14:48:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 September 2012 14:48:51 GMT