- From: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:09:12 -0800
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F3935A8.4020901@oracle.com>
Folks -
I think I probably caused some confusion. On my side, I have a
requirement which I have provided use-cases for in previous threads
regarding agents to recognize human vs. non-human agents. Previously, I
asked for Software Agents, but my intent was just the distinction
between human and system (non-human) actors which is something that
there is much prior art on and is clearly needed. So, the concrete asks:
1. Direct human intervention and non-direct human intervention is an
important distinction in use-cases that relate to legal, audit,
finance, eRecords, etc. This requirement is satisfied by defining
Human vs. Non-Human. Previously, I probably caused the confusion by
using the word Software Agent, not having considered the blurry line
between Hardware and software.
2. Autonomy which hasn't been discussed, but I don't want to add more
confusion in the interest of things moving forward. IF we can get a
quick agreement on that, I'm good. Otherwise, let's just call it
out-of-scope. So, in legal, audit, eRecords, and other use-cases,
culpability is important which means we need to know if some
non-human process made the change autonomously (based on a set of
rules, intelligence, etc.) or as a direct means of invocation by a
human. The former has less culpability. The latter more. Applies
in other arena's too... I can have a news aggregator that sticks
different things together and, in some cases, potentially create
poor context and less meaning (autonomy causing less culpability and
in turn less reliability)... versus a human aggregating the news
bits which has more culpibility and (at least hopefully) more
reliability.
Anyways, if (2) is another diversion, I don't want to do it. Just
mainly clarifying (1) and my apologies if I caused the confusion to
begin with by using the words "Software Agent"
Best.
On 2/13/12 7:43 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
>
> Your message is clear: you refer to the biomedical domain. To me,
> this is domain specific.
>
>
> The reference is not only to biomedical domain, we can easily create
> scenarios for space exploration (from Reza's mail), oil field
> exploration etc. As you remember, we have scores of examples scenarios
> in the XG.
>
>
> Whereas, "There are three types of agents in the model since they
> are common across most anticipated domain of use".
>
>
> We seem to going around in circles - first you say biomedical
> applications is domain specific, but then justify software agent for
> "most anticipated domain of use", which is in other words
> "domain-specific"?
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
> 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/%7E__lavm>
>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 16:09:53 UTC