- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:59:38 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
BTW, full citation for that paper: Ryan Shaw, Raphaƫl Troncy and Lynda Hardman. LODE: Linking Open Descriptions of Events. In 4th Annual Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC'09), vol. LNCS 5926, pages 153-167, Shanghai, China, December 6-9, 2009, (doi). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10871-6_11 #g -- On 25/10/2011 09:51, Graham Klyne wrote: > This viewpoint is possibly supported by some work mentioned in a recent paper > from the #derive2011 workshop(?): > http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/Publications/Troncy_Shaw-aswc09.pdf (I don't have > a formal citation for this yet, as the link came to me via a recent twitter > conversation.) > > A number of the event ontologies surveyed seem to make a similar distinction. > > I think this whole area of event modelling is very relevant for provenance, as > the more I look at the provenance model, the more it looks like an > event-mediated structure for talking about the production of Entities. I think > the survey in the above paper is worth reading. > > #g > -- > > On 24/10/2011 00:04, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-134: Non-Human Agent vs. Human Agent [Data Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/134 >> >> Raised by: Reza B'Far >> On product: Data Model >> >> I propose to revisit the previously discussed, but not concluded, topic of >> "Types" of Agents. I had brought up this topic and the following was suggested >> as a reference - >> >> http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/trdf/nfs/project/t/tr/trdf/7/7a/ProvenanceVocabularyOverview.png >> >> >> There are a large set of use-cases (not just in my particular interest of >> Governance) where, whether the actions of an agent are directly controlled by >> a human being versus an automated mechanism makes a very significant >> difference in inferencing over the available instance data. Examples: >> >> 1. Human agent modifying a legal document versus the legal document being >> modified by a system agent that converts data formats. >> 2. Human agent modifying a setting in a system whose provenance model is >> important for governing that system versus a system agent doing the same: >> Example - Provenance of a "License" where Human agent expiring a license by >> changing/enforcing a date is quite a different event than a system agent >> changing/enforcing a date (say as a part of a mass/cascade update to a series >> of records) that causes expiration of a license. >> >> Other use-cases are available if need-be. I actually claim that the number of >> such use-cases are increasing given the proliferation of pipe-and-filter >> architectures being deployed within Big Data infrastructures (where either >> pipes or filters can be Non-Human Agent/Actors). Furthermore, as another >> evidence, there are other references to UML Use-Case and Sequence Diagrams >> where the distinction is becoming prevalent. >> >> As a solution, I suggest we take the same approach that the aforementioned URL >> above has taken. >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 11:58:26 UTC