- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:45:37 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
yes, good idea, Paul. On 25/09/2012 15:44, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi > > I'm happy with the response but is this something we can add to the FAQ. Namely > > Q: When should I use prov:Agent and its subtypes? > prov:Agent assigns responsibility. ...... > > This could be marked in the proposed change. > > What do people think? > > Thanks > Paul > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Luc Moreau<l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have drafted a response to this issue on the wiki at: >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-520_.28Person.2FOrganization.2FSoftwareAgent.29 >> I copy the text below for your convience. >> >> Feedback, suggestions welcome. >> Luc >> >> >> ISSUE-520 (Person/Organization/SoftwareAgent) >> >> Original email: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0110.html >> Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/520 >> Group Response: >> >> The reason why the WG introduced agents in the PROV model is to be able to >> assign responsibility for an activity taking place, for the existence of an >> entity, or for another agent's activity. >> For inter-operability reason, the WG also believed it is useful to define >> commonly encountered types of agents: Person, SoftwareAgent, and >> Organization. Agents of type prov:Person are people responsible for >> something; agents of type prov:SoftwareAgent are running software >> responsible for something; etc >> Given this, it is not appropriate to make Person/SoftwareAgent/Organization >> subtypes of Entity, since entities by default do not bear responsibility in >> the PROV model. It is the notion of prov:Agent that carries responsibility, >> in PROV. >> If one wishes to introduce a type of person, as an entity, without >> associating any responsibility, then there are ontologies, outside PROV, >> which allow for that. FOAF concepts such as foaf:Person, foaf:Organization >> may be relevant. With these, one can write entity(e, >> [prov:type='foaf:Person']) >> >> References: >> >> foaf:Person: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person >> foaf:Organization: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Organization >> >> References: >> Proposed changes: none >> Original author's acknowledgement: >> >> >> >> On 10/09/2012 09:47, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-520: Data Model Section 5.3.1 [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/520 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: prov-dm >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_5.3.1 >> >> ISSUE-463 >> >> Given their definitions, Entities (or Activities) act as Agents for >> Activities. Since Person, Software, and Organization all fit the definition >> of Entity, I believe they should be specializations of Entity rather than >> Agent, which is a role that Entities can play in a given context. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- 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
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 14:49:29 UTC