Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition

Hi,

Reiterating a previous comment I made, can an Agent be defined 
independently of process execution?

We can use the definitions of Control/Participation to define an agent's 
involvement in process execution.

If we see agents/things/process executions as nodes and 
Control/Generation/... as edges of a graph,
it would be nice if nodes could be defined independently of edges.

Luc


On 21/06/11 02:33, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Paul and Stephan,
> In both your definitions, what criteria distinguishes an "agent" from 
> a "process" - in terms of "do stuff"/"active role or produces a 
> specified effect"?
>
> Reviewing the candidate definitions of Agents, I see that Jun's, 
> Khalid's and my definitions use an explicit reference to a process 
> (execution).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu 
> <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>
>     I like this definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary
>     because it ties in nicely with provenance
>
>     "A person on thing that takes an active role or produces a
>     specified effect."
>
>     --Stephan
>
>     On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>
>     > Hi All,
>     >
>     > What would people think of just adopting FOAF's definition of
>     Agent for now:
>     >
>     > The Agent class is the class of agents; things that do stuff. A
>     well known sub-class is Person, representing people. Other kinds
>     of agents include Organization and Group.
>     >
>     >
>     > thanks,
>     > Paul
>     >
>     >
>
>
>