- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:34:31 +0000
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
PROV defines prov:SoftwareAgent [1] which might be appropriate. There are also prov:Organization and prov;Person. In the PROV-Dublin Core Terms mapping we make dct:Agent owl:equivalentClass prov:Agent. I think it should also be equivalent to at foaf:Agent, but we've not formally stated that anywhere. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#SoftwareAgent [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dc/ On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Bob, Paolo, > > Yes, we had the exact same discussion last week :) The conclusion was that > the inference of Agent-ness can be drawn based on the range of > oa:annotatedBy / oa:serializedBy, or the domain of the various foaf > properties. So requiring the assertion to be explicit was unnecessary. > > The options seem to be: > * Status quo, but make it explicit in the description of the Provenance > Agents section > * Create our own SoftwareAgent subClass of foaf:Agent > * Convince Dan to add one to foaf > > Dan? > > Rob > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi Bob, >> we have been discussing that issues when we picked that type >> and we felt a little uncomfortable as well. >> >> In the past, personally, I've been extending FOAF with some classes and >> properties. >> That is the other option I see. It would be our class though. >> >> Paolo >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I guess this issue is in the current core also. >>> >>> In http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/core.html#ProvAgents it >>> is proposed that dctypes:Software be used to type a software agent. >>> One problem is that dctypesSoftware is not a subtype of foaf:Agent, >>> thereby requiring(?) that a foaf:Agent type also be asserted on any >>> Agent of type dctype:Software. >>> >>> I don't find this inherently improper, but I'm uncomfortable about an >>> asymmetry between the Person and Software cases. I don't have a better >>> idea though, and wonder why the FOAF community hasn't offered such a >>> subclass. >>> >>> We also would often need to have Software as the object of >>> oa:annotatedBy. In addition to humans, we have Kepler workflows >>> producing annotations autonomously. >>> >>> Bob Morris >>> >>> -- >>> Robert A. Morris >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Computer Science >>> UMASS-Boston >>> 100 Morrissey Blvd >>> Boston, MA 02125-3390 >>> >>> IT Staff >>> Filtered Push Project >>> Harvard University Herbaria >>> Harvard University >>> >>> email: morris.bob@gmail.com >>> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ >>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush >>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram >>> === >>> The content of this communication is made entirely on my >>> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express >>> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or >>> Harvard University. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Paolo Ciccarese >> http://www.paolociccarese.info/ >> Biomedical Informatics Research & Development >> Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School >> Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital >> +1-857-366-1524 (mobile) +1-617-768-8744 (office) >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the >> addressee(s), may contain information that is considered >> to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to >> any other party without the permission of the sender. >> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender >> immediately. > > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 14:35:22 UTC