Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition

Hi Stephan,
I can see the logic in this.
Can you confirm you mean 'thing' as we defined it?

Luc

On 21/06/11 07:37, Stephan Zednik wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> To answer Luc's question I originally intended to say that I thought 
> an agent can be defined independently of process execution and I 
> agreed that an agent should be a node whose relationship to a process 
> execution should be defined by a control/participation/influence(?) edge.
>
> As I thought about it a bit more I began to wonder if agent was better 
> described as a role (active participant) a thing takes in the context 
> of some specific action (in this case a process execution).  An agent 
> is definitely a thing, but is that thing always an agent?  Or is it an 
> agent within the context/scope of the act it has participated in?
>
> A thing assumes the role of agent when actively participating in a 
> process execution?
>
> I think I am leaning towards making 'agent' status of a thing 
> dependent upon active participation in a process execution.
>
> --Stephan
>
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:28 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>
>>>
>>>