- From: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:49:25 -0700
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4EA83A15.6020709@oracle.com>
Jim - I disagree. The fact that there is a process whose agent is not well known, or that that agent's behavior is not deterministic (random, chaotic, probabilistic, or some other type) doesn't mean that there is no agent. I would argue that in a weather modeling system, there are 1 or more agents that encapsulate the algorithms that model the whether behavior given a set of stimuli. I would claim that there is ALWAYS an agent and that this can be resolved via Agent "typing" as requested on a different thread versus saying that there is no agent. Best. On 10/26/11 9:42 AM, Jim McCusker wrote: > No, there isn't. Stellar formation doesn't happen because of specific > agency, it just happens as an effect of gravity and having the right > mass in the right place at the right time. Things happen all the time > that have no agency - weather is a perfect example. > > Jim > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi Jim, >> >> That's what my OED says: >> >> A condition in which things are happening or being done. >> >> Is there a notion of agency when we say "things are happening"? >> >> Luc >> >> On 10/26/2011 03:56 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: >>> Then not Event. But I think a key goal of our work is to find terms >>> that align best with the intended usage. This makes it much easier for >>> people who are coming to the model for the first time. It's perfect >>> that we've started with concepts, but these concepts are being >>> grounded in terminology, and that should align with the chosen, >>> default language. >>> >>> If someone can give me a counterexample where an act or activity >>> doesn't have an implied actor, I'll withdraw my negative vote. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Paolo Ncl >>> <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think we are in fact reading a bit too much into this. The intent was >>>> to simplify and harmonize the key terms used in the model. an agent may >>>> play a part in the activity, and we do have a way to express that, but that >>>> doesn't have to be (does that mean we cater to eastern cultures as well? :-) >>>> ) >>>> But I strongly advise against using the term "event" to refer to >>>> activities that have a time duration. Events already have a clear role to >>>> play in the model, and have no duration. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Paolo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On 26 Oct 2011, at 15:05, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JimMcC indicated that activity implied a notion of agency. I am not >>>>>> familiar >>>>>> with this >>>>>> interpretation. Where does it come from? He suggests 'event', but this >>>>>> term >>>>>> is already in >>>>>> the document (and will be the subject of a future clarification >>>>>> proposal). >>>>>> >>>>> Activity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/activity) is >>>>> defined as a quality or state of being active. If you look at the >>>>> examples at MW, all of them have some sort of agent or actor. There is >>>>> one natural process example, which is that a volcano is active. Even >>>>> in that case, the volcano is being considered an actor (which is fine >>>>> in discourse, but isn't technically correct). The root word, "act", >>>>> when used, requires an actor. An act can happen with an unknown actor, >>>>> but there is always an entity that is behind an act. >>>>> >>>>> Using this word to describe all events (including natural events), >>>>> especially formally in a standard, gives the model a pre-scientific >>>>> bais (the idea that a prime mover is needed, because all events are >>>>> acts). Note that this is actually a western bais too, as many eastern >>>>> traditions do not require a prime mover. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I'm reading far too much into this, but if we're looking to >>>>> simplify, I would far prefer Event or Process (but with a clear >>>>> explanation that it is a occurrent, not a specification of an >>>>> occurrent) to Activity. >>>>> >>>>> Jim >>>>> -- >>>>> Jim McCusker >>>>> Programmer Analyst >>>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >>>>> Yale School of Medicine >>>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >>>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >>>>> >>>>> PhD Student >>>>> Tetherless World Constellation >>>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >>>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >>>>> http://tw.rpi.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 16:50:03 UTC