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

Did we agree on this in the end? (Issue has been closed)

The OWL file has now prov:Organization, prov:person and prov:System


http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html#term-Agent
has Human, Organization and ComputingSystem.


http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-Agent
has Human, Organization and SoftwareAgent


http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent file does not reflect
the OWL change. Whoever changed the OWL file - please update (at least
the right-hand-side) on the ProvRDF page. This is the process we
agreed in F2F2.



On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 22:09, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
> Oops.  One more important correction.  Its been a bad brain to keyboard day...
>
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>
>> Forgot to include my full thought,  :-)
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen usage of the term 'System' to refer to hardware + software.
>>>
>>> That's a pretty broad term, and should have an appropriately broad definition.  It would cover far more than hardware + software and I would be hesitant to establish any disjointness.
>>>
>>> My thoughts on agent convienence classes has not changed, but if we are to include convienance specializations of Agent we should probably be discussing definitions.
>>
>> as they apply to our intended distinction.  "System" may be an applicable high-level concept that software+hardware can fit into, but it may satisfy the distinction you are trying to make.
>
>  "System" may be an applicable high-level concept that software+hardware can fit into, but it may ~not~ satisfy the distinction you are trying to make.
>
>
> --Stephan
>
>>
>>>
>>> A first crack at a definition for system would be "a combination of things (sub components) forming a whole."
>>
>> Would such a definition apply at all to the distinction you are trying to make?  I think it may be too broad.
>>
>> --Stephan
>>
>>>
>>> Is the non-person agent class you want to describe limited to software + hardware?
>>
>>>
>>> --Stephan
>>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A thought:
>>>>
>>>> responsible agent
>>>> vs
>>>> deterministic agent
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> #g
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> On 12/02/2012 18:04, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>> Hi Satya,
>>>>>
>>>>> What's a good name for the class of both hardware + software agent?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 11:56:38 UTC