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

Hi Luc,

Yes, sounds better thanks.

Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/

________________________________
From: Luc Moreau [l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 11 October 2012 13:18
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: 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:
    *   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
    *   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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm