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

Hi Satya,

Your message is clear: you refer to the biomedical domain.  To me, this is domain specific.

Whereas,  "There are three types of agents in the model since they are common across most anticipated domain of use".  Furthermore, we say It is not an exhaustive list.

I would suggest that the best practice example should create a new class of agent that addresses a domain specific need.

This would be much more compelling, it would show we invite communities to define such subclasses, and it would show how to do it.

Do you want to help craft such an example?

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 12 Feb 2012, at 23:36, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu<mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:

Hi Luc,

Of course we can talk about routers.
Exactly - there are many provenance-related scenarios in variety of application domains. Adding software agent to DM core will make it harder for users in say clinical research (majority use paper-based record keeping), bench research developing new vaccine targets (not using in-silico approaches) etc to adopt the model.

Alternatively, is there a reason not to include both software and hardware agents? Is there any downside to include hardware agent, which is not there for software agent?

But have had a use case, discussed by this wg and including routers?

Not sure what you mean - the wg is not discussing any "official" use case? We are using anecdotal scenarios to explain PROV constructs and not to drive creation of new constructs.

There are many biomedical use cases from XG and W3C HCLS group (e.g. mass spectrometer "hardware" and virus "biological" agents)?

A suggestion is to have two subtypes of agent (loosely from the provenance vocabulary approach)- biological and non-biological agents (hardware, software agents, organizations etc.).

What do you think?

Best,
Satya

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 12 Feb 2012, at 22:53, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu<mailto:satya.sahoo@case.edu>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto: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 <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> University of
Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865<tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> United Kingdom
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~__lavm
<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>