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

Khalid

I seem to remember that Paul had replied to this (but I have no record), and to add to that, yes, I think there is no problem. It 
actually implies that Agents have provenance, which was the main rationale for making them Bobs in the first place, and thus the 
provenance of the Bob generated by a process execution may include the provenance of the Agents which were involved in the activity. 
I see no contradiction.

-Paolo


On 7/21/11 7:58 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent"
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/34
>
> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
> On product:
>
>
> 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 Monday, 25 July 2011 11:39:59 UTC