Re: proposed responses to public comments (deadline: Wednesday 10/10)

Hi Simon,

I changed the response to ISSUE-520 as follows.Thoughts?


>  *
>
>
>
>     The reason why an instance of prov:Agent is allowed to be also a
>     prov:Entity is because we may want to talk about its provenance,
>     how it was generated or derived, etc.
>   * Given this:
>       o it is not appropriate to make
>         Person/SoftwareAgent/Organization subtypes of Entity in PROV,
>         since entities by default do not bear responsibility in the
>         PROV model. It is the notion of prov:Agent that carries
>         responsibility, in PROV
>       o it is possible to define an instance as both a prov:Person and
>         a prov:Entity, when we want to express it is responsible for
>         something, and we want to express its provenance.
>

Luc


On 10/09/2012 04:12 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:
> ISSUE-520:
> I don't disagree with the response, but I think there's something missing. The response really argues why a Person etc. shouldn't*only*  be an Entity, not why it should be an Agent but*not*  an Entity. PROV-DM allows for things to be both an Entity and an Agent, and it isn't clear from the response why this does not apply automatically to things of type Person.

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm