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

Hi Jim,
> However agents are modeled, I think it is important to have a way to
describe their provenance
I agree. For example, the manufacturer or place and date of manufacture of a
sensor (acting as an agent in a sensor network) are relevant provenance
information.

Best,
Satya

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:

> We debated quite a bit for OPM and ended up making agent a separate 'class'
> because agents appeared to blend being a thing and acting like a process,
> along with the challenge that artifacts were immutable and agents were not.
> Given mutable things, and potential interest/use cases where the provenance
> of agents is of interest, making people and organizations PIL:things that
> have an agent role in a process seems like a possible/useful approach.
>
> However agents are modeled, I think it is important to have a way to
> describe their provenance...
>
>  Jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:56 AM
> > To: Zednik, Stephan T.
> > Cc: Luc Moreau; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition
> >
> > Stephan Zednik wrote:
> >  > A thing assumes the role of agent when actively participating in a  >
> process
> > execution?
> >
> > *If* the concept of an agent is needed, then I think this approach is
> useful.
> > I.e. it's similar to the view discussion, more easily captured in
> relations.
> >
> > But I think someone (Jim?) made a comment that the whole notion of an
> agent
> > may not be needed if some of the other concepts can be loosened up a
> little.
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> > Stephan Zednik wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > To answer Luc's question I originally intended to say that I thought
> > > an agent can be defined independently of process execution and I
> > > agreed that an agent should be a node whose relationship to a process
> > > execution should be defined by a control/participation/influence(?)
> edge.
> > >
> > > As I thought about it a bit more I began to wonder if agent was better
> > > described as a role (active participant) a thing takes in the context
> > > of some specific action (in this case a process execution).  An agent
> > > is definitely a thing, but is that thing always an agent?  Or is it an
> > > agent within the context/scope of the act it has participated in?
> > >
> > > A thing assumes the role of agent when actively participating in a
> > > process execution?
> > >
> > > I think I am leaning towards making 'agent' status of a thing
> > > dependent upon active participation in a process execution.
> > >
> > > --Stephan
> > >
> > > On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:28 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > > <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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 <
> > >>> <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>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
> > >>>     >
> > >>>     >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
>
>