- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:28:29 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|2bca583ab62e4f4828a3f81d72142818n5K6SW08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E002BFD>
Hi, Reiterating a previous comment I made, can an Agent be defined independently of process execution? We can use the definitions of Control/Participation to define an agent's involvement in process execution. If we see agents/things/process executions as nodes and Control/Generation/... as edges of a graph, it would be nice if nodes could be defined independently of edges. Luc On 21/06/11 02:33, Satya Sahoo wrote: > Hi Paul and Stephan, > In both your definitions, what criteria distinguishes an "agent" from > a "process" - in terms of "do stuff"/"active role or produces a > specified effect"? > > Reviewing the candidate definitions of Agents, I see that Jun's, > Khalid's and my definitions use an explicit reference to a process > (execution). > > What do you think? > > Thanks. > > Best, > Satya > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu > <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote: > > I like this definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary > because it ties in nicely with provenance > > "A person on thing that takes an active role or produces a > specified effect." > > --Stephan > > On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > What would people think of just adopting FOAF's definition of > Agent for now: > > > > The Agent class is the class of agents; things that do stuff. A > well known sub-class is Person, representing people. Other kinds > of agents include Organization and Group. > > > > > > thanks, > > Paul > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 05:28:56 UTC