- From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:25:41 -0500
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOMwk6xXczpTVTHoa0g-pG6-gNP62T2==qJ85TpFO3R+9Z4a4A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Stian, No, it could not be voted on during the last call. Best, Satya On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes < soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > 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 15:26:19 UTC