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

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 

I am closing this action, pending review.

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]
> 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
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 10:41:14 UTC