Re: PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent"

Hi Paul,

On 23/07/2011 15:36, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Khalid,
>
> I think the definition of agents as a BOB is fine. The definition 
> doesn't prevent you from having things that change about an agent 
> outside the things that you defined as fixed.

I agree. What I raised was not really an issue, it was more a 
consequence of the choice we've made that I thought we should be aware 
of. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I find that having 
multiple BOBs that are associated with the same process execution, is 
fine, even when the different BOB refers to the same human or system. 
This is because defining an agent as a BOB, as opposed to an entity, 
give us more information (provenance) about the properties of the agent 
when controlling the process execution.

Thanks, khalid

>
> So for alice:
>
> If the attributes that characterized Alice, were her first name, last 
> name, and facebook url then changing her profession wouldn't matter.
>
> If the core attributes change about how we identify alice I think it's 
> fair enough to require that those changes be reflected in provenance.
>
> It's almost as if you were changing who you believed was controlling 
> the process and indeed if a core attribute of the person changes this 
> is important information to know.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Paul
>
>> According to the definition in the Provenance Model initial draft "An
>> agent represents a characterized entity capable of activity".
>>
>> My interpretation of this definition is that "an agent is a BOB". If
>> that is the case, then one of the consequences is that we may need to
>> associate a given process execution with multiple Agents that refer
>> to the same human (system). To illustrate this, consider a long
>> running process execution that is controlled by Alice, and consider
>> that one of the attribute characterizing Alice, e.g., grade,
>> changed, e.g., she was promoted, in that case, we will need to create
>> a new BOB (that characterizes Alice) and associate it with the
>> running process execution. Are we happy with this?
>>
>> Khalid
>
>

Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 10:43:24 UTC