- From: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:43:34 -0800
- To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- CC: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4F3AF1A6.9070501@oracle.com>
Excellent. Thanks. So, I guess the modified proposal is: Human Agent Computing System Agent Organizational Agent Votes? On 2/14/12 3:42 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote: > Hi Reza, > > Please note the following - > > 1. I'm not trying to model something domain specific. I'm using > the domain specific requirement as a test-case. There was a > long thread with Yolanda, etc. on Agent, etc. This is > probably a bit of an extension now, but there is also overlap > 2. We can modify "System" to "Computing System" which will > include both "hardware" and "software". > 3. We can use the therm "Human Agent" as opposed to a Person if > you're opposed to "Person" > > So, do you prefer: > > Human Agent > Computing System Agent > Organizational Agent > > These labels are much more intuitive. Thanks! > > I will defer discussion on test-case since it does not have a bearing > on our making progress here. > > Best, > Satya > > Thanks > > On 2/14/12 3:28 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote: >> Hi Luc and Reza, >> There are issues with making Person as subtype of Agent, since we >> refer to a Person in many contexts where the Person is not an >> Agent (e.g. Bob the person is 50 years old - there is no notion >> of responsibility to identify Bob as an Agent in this assertion). >> >> Reza: Can you please suggest a definition for "System"? In many >> contexts System is the same as Organization (e.g. Esurance is an >> online auto insurance company and a "system"). >> >> Trying to model agents from a domain-specific scenario (eRecords, >> audit) in the "core" DM will lead to elements that will be >> incompatible with requirements of other domains, hence my >> original suggestion was to move the subtypes of agent to an >> "extensibility" or "common elements" sections of the DM. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best, >> Satya >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu >> <mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote: >> >> +1 for all 3 >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Stephan Zednik >> <zednis@rpi.edu <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote: >> >> +1 for all 3 >> >> --Stephan >> >> On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >>> Hi reza, >>> >>> I gather we are still keeping organisations. So, does >>> it mean 3 subtypes of agents: >>> - person, >>> - system >>> - organisation? >>> >>> Is there support for this proposal? >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science >>> University of Southampton >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> >>> On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:12, "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" >>> <reza.bfar@oracle.com <mailto:reza.bfar@oracle.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | >> (203) 785-6330 <tel:%28203%29%20785-6330> >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu> >> http://tw.rpi.edu >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 23:44:20 UTC