- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:56:20 +0100
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Stephan Zednik wrote: > A thing assumes the role of agent when actively participating in a > process execution? *If* the concept of an agent is needed, then I think this approach is useful. I.e. it's similar to the view discussion, more easily captured in relations. But I think someone (Jim?) made a comment that the whole notion of an agent may not be needed if some of the other concepts can be loosened up a little. #g -- 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 < >>> <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>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 09:12:01 UTC