Submissions:ActingFor
From Odp
If you are a member of quality committee please visit the
If you are author of this proposal or you want to contribute to this pattern's review, you can: specify if this revision takes in account any of the review(s) In general, it could be useful to visit the evaluation section to have information about the evaluation process of this proposal Current revision ID: 10789 |
Graphical representation
Diagram (this article has no graphical representation)
General description
Name: | ActingFor |
---|---|
Submitted by: | AldoGangemi |
Also Known As: | |
Intent: | To represent that some agent is acting in order to forward the action of a social (non-physical) agent. |
Domains: | |
Competency Questions: |
|
Solution description: | - |
Reusable OWL Building Block: | http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/actingfor.owl (1063) |
Consequences: | An ontology designer is able to express relations like delegation, working for, etc. It is not possible to express either time indexing (the situation pattern should be specialized to that purpose), nor the role or task, under which the social action is carried out by the physical agent (the descriptionandsituation pattern should be used instead). |
Scenarios: | Matteo Sanvitale is working as an officer for CEMA s.r.l. |
Known Uses: | |
Web References: | |
Other References: | |
Examples (OWL files): | |
Extracted From: | |
Reengineered From: | |
Has Components: | |
Specialization Of: | |
Related CPs: |
Elements
The ActingFor Content OP locally defines the following ontology elements:
Additional comment: a computational agent can be considered as a PhysicalAgent that realizes a certain class of algorithms (that can be considered as instances of InformationObject) that allow to obtain some behaviors that are considered typical of agents in general. For an ontology of computational objects based on DOLCE see e.g. and http://www.loa-cnr.it/COS/COS.owl, and http://www.loa-cnr.it/KCO/KCO.owl.
Additional information
Scenarios
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
Reviews
There is no review about this proposal. This revision (revision ID 10789) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
Modeling issues
There is no Modeling issue related to this proposal.
References