Re: PROV-ISSUE-188: Section 5.2.3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]

Hi Luc,
My suggestion is to:
a) Either remove software agent or include hardware agent (since both occur
together).
b) State the agent subtypes as only examples and not include them as part
of "core" DM.

Except the above two points, I am fine with closing of this issue.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Satya, Paul, Graham,
>
> I am proposing not to take any action on this issue, except indicate, as
> Graham suggested,
> that these 3 agent types "are common across most anticipated domains of
> use".
>
> I am closing this action, pending review.
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
>
> On 12/07/2011 01:58 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-188: Section 5.2.3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/188<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/188>
>>
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> Hi,
>> The following are my comments for Section 5.2.3 of the PROV-DM as on Nov
>> 28:
>>
>> Section 5.2.3:
>> 1. "From an inter-operability perspective, it is useful to define some
>> basic categories of agents since it will improve the use of provenance
>> records by applications. There should be very few of these basic categories
>> to keep the model simple and accessible. There are three types of agents in
>> the model:
>> * Person: agents of type Person are people. (This type is equivalent to a
>> "foaf:person" [FOAF])
>> * Organization: agents of type Organization are social institutions such
>> as companies, societies etc. (This type is equivalent to a
>> "foaf:organization" [FOAF])
>> * SoftwareAgent: a software agent is a piece of software."
>> Comment: Why should the WG model only these three types of agents
>> explicitly. What about biological agents (e.g E.coli responsible for mass
>> food poisoning), "hardware" agents (e.g. reconnaissance drones, industrial
>> robots in car assembly line)? The WG should either enumerate all possible
>> agent sub-types (an impractical approach) or just model Agent only without
>> any sub-types. The WG does not explicitly model all possible sub-types of
>> Activity - why should a different approach be adopted for Agent?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>> Satya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>