- From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:35:44 -0500
- To: reza.bfar@oracle.com
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAOMwk6wjpwy3+-sOrfZc3wGtM=9VABQyG8ns3dVssRM8dztP=w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Reza, > IMHO, it'd be best to just keep it to human vs. non-human agent. > > I agree with this also - the DM to have only the above two subtypes of agents. Thanks. Best, Satya > Best. > > On 2/12/12 3:36 PM, Satya Sahoo 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> 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> 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 >>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: 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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 15:36:17 UTC