- From: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:10:54 -0800
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F39360E.1060100@oracle.com>
One more follow-up. It may be more clear to go with "System" vs. "Human" Agents which is what folks have done with various UML extensions and UML diagrams such as use-case and sequence diagrams. Luc is right in that Non-Human, in our provenance context, can refer to things like institutions, etc. SO, I propose "System" and "Human" actors. 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 16:11:33 UTC