- From: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:35:31 -0700
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4FB293E3.5000507@oracle.com>
+1 On 5/15/12 8:17 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Sorry, for the confusing message. > > The text currently says: > An agent MAY be a particular type of entity. > > > Instead, I am proposing that we write: > An agent MAY be a particular type of entity OR ACTIVITY. > > > Regards, > Luc > > On 05/15/2012 04:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Agents are no longer a subclass of entity. >> >> >> The text currently says: >> An agent MAY be a particular type of entity or activity. >> >> >> Instead, I am proposing that we write: >> An agent MAY be a particular type of entity or activity. >> >> >> In other words, the proposal is that Agent and Activity are not >> disjoint classes. >> This offers flexibility to asserters. I don't think there has been a >> strong case >> for making those classes disjoint. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Luc >> >> >> On 04/02/2012 10:53 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> PROV-ISSUE-337 (agent-and-entity): agent should not be a subclass of >>> entity [prov-dm] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/337 >>> >>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>> On product: prov-dm >>> >>> Currently, prov-dm defines agent as follows: >>> >>> An agent is a type of entity that bears some form of responsibility >>> for an activity taking place. An agent is a particular type of >>> Entity. This means that the model can be used to express provenance >>> of the agents themselves. >>> >>> While it is nice to be able to express the provenance of agents, it >>> is not obvious to me that agents should always be entities. In >>> fact, they could be activities. >>> >>> Consider a collaboration activity, to which several agents ag1, ag2, >>> ..., agn are associated. Why can't we see it as an agent too? >>> activity(collaboration) >>> wasAssociatedWith(collaboration,agi,contract) >>> >>> agent(collaboration) >>> wasAttributed(nice-piece-of-work,collaboration) >>> >>> >>> So, I would propose the following alternative definition: >>> >>> >>> An agent is something that bears some form of responsibility for an >>> activity taking place. >>> >>> A given agent may be a particular type of Entity or Activity. This >>> means that the model can be used to express provenance of the agents >>> themselves. >>> >>> >>> Looking at prov-o, I notice that they have already defined an agent >>> as subclass of owl:Thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 17:36:07 UTC