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

Hi Luc,

> Nonhuman agent would imply other non software agents too.  It does not
> capture the intent.
>
> Is the intent to model only software agents?

>
> Software is particular relevant for the web. I don't see the problem with
> it. What use case do you want to support Satya?
>
> From my original mail on Dec 07, 2011:

>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?

"hardware" is equally relevant "for the web" (e.g. "router").

Best,
Satya


> I had the feeling that we had reached agreement two months ago on this
> matter, and I don't see any new evidence to reopen the debate,
>
>
>  Ultimately we have to be pragmatic and move on.
>

> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 12 Feb 2012, at 20:23, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
>
>   Hi all,
> I agree with Olaf's suggestion - its effectively captures our intent.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Best,
> Satya
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi Olaf,
>>
>> That seems reasonable to me. I wonder what the group thinks.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>> Olaf Hartig wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hi Satya,
>>>>
>>>> What's a good name for the class of both hardware + software
>>>> agent?
>>>>
>>>
>>>  In the Provenance Vocabulary we use the term NonHumanActor; so, maybe
>>> "non-human agent" for PROV?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Olaf
>>>
>>>   The key issue is that we need to distinguish between People and
>>>> Software so I this should be kept in the model.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Satya Sahoo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>>>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.**uk <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>
>>>>> <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 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> University of
>>>>> Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.**uk <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> United
>>>>> Kingdom
>>>>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~__**lavm<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~__lavm>
>>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~**lavm <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>