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

Hi all,
I agree with Luc's and Stephan's modified definition with small change:

"A thing that is causally involved in a process execution is an Agent"

Best,
Satya

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> 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 <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 <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
>>>>    >
>>>>    >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>