- From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:58:05 -0400
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: <khalidb@cs.man.ac.uk>, <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I think the choice being made is really on the part of the asserter. There's nothing in the model that says I can't use a really long-lived BOB for the agent, i.e. one defined as 'Alice while she's alive'. There's also nothing to stop an asserter from creating a long-string of BOBs representing Alice in 'sleepy' and 'rested' states that would allow one to start understanding whether Alice makes better decisions when rested. And this is a good thing - both are valid use cases and the model we're discussing/refining would a) allow both, and b) let you connect the two (IVPof) views. -- Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Khalid Belhajjame > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 6:43 AM > To: Paul Groth > Cc: khalidb@cs.man.ac.uk; public-prov-wg@w3.org > Subject: 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 14:58:49 UTC