- From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:17:08 +0100
- To: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hello, Paul: >> My feeling is that it's one of the three core classes and should be >> able to stand on its own but in order to describe an agents provenance >> you need to make it either an entity or an activity. Yes, I strongly agree with the statement above. I think that it gets into all sorts of philosophical mess if we suggest an agent could be neither an entity or an activity (if so, what is it?). But we don't require people to say which for any given agent (unless they want to describe its provenance, as you say). Curt: > I'm suggesting that agents should be just entities and not activities. > I'd like to see a good case where an activity is an agent. Maybe when the activity is an action with an intention behind it and we don't wish to model who held the intention and performed the action, just the action itself. Doing "touch file.x" was responsible for "file.x being backed up", not just a cause of it. "Saying 'shut the window'" was responsible for the activity of the window being shut. regardless of who said it. Modelling the activities as agents and using wasAssociatedWith allows the responsibility to be expressed and so blame to later be ascribed. Thanks, Simon
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2012 14:17:54 UTC