Add Agent and SoftwareAgent classes

[rjyounes]

Add a SoftwareAgent class for chatbots, interactive websites, mobile apps, and other software systems that people can interact with.

Add an Agent class, subclassed by Person, Organization, and SoftwareAgent.

Related to #131.

[uscholdm]

There used to be a class called something like ComputerProgram that was meant to cover this case. That was problemantic because a program is a set of instructions manifest as content, usually text. Only when it is running on a computer can it 'do' anything. MorganStanley core has something called SoftwareAgent, which is closer to what we want.

[rjyounes]

I agree that ComputerProgram is not what we want.

[rjyounes]

I just noticed this definition of gist:Message: "A specific instance of content sent from an Organization, Person, or Application to at least one other Organization, Person, or Application."

It looks like there was an Application class at some point. SoftwareAgent is a bit clearer.

[uscholdm]

Yes, it should be SoftwareAgent (I'm thinking that is still a class in gist).

[rjyounes]

There is no such class, nor Application, in gist 9.

[rjyounes]

There are two senses of SoftwareAgent. One is the more general meaning of Software, which performs actions and interacts with humans. The other is the narrower sense of chatbot, digital agent, etc. The latter is the Wikipedia definition. So I would revise my proposal as follows:

Add Agent class, disjoint union of Person, Organization, Software.
Add SoftwareAgent subclass of Software, if we want it, otherwise leave to client ontologies.

[uscholdm]

I Presume that by "This is the Wikipedia" you mean "The latter is the Wikipedia"

[rjyounes]

Correct. I've updated the comment accordingly.

[rjyounes]

Consider with #131

[rjyounes]

Would Organization be a subclass of Agent? FIBO defines AutonomousAgent as: "An autonomous entity that can adapt to and interact with its environment." Depending on exactly what that means, it could encompass organizations.

On the other hand, organizations can act, but perhaps it's more accurate to say that people act on behalf of organizations, which would mean the organization itself does not act and therefore is not an agent.

FIBO's definition of Organization is "a unique framework of authority within which a person or persons act, or are designated to act, towards some purpose, such as to meet a need or pursue collective goals on a continuing basis". This reinforces the idea that organizations are not themselves agents, and in fact in FIBO it is not a subclass of Agent.

[uscholdm]

@rjyounes said:

Would Organization be a subclass of Agent?

Probably not, if you include special purpose vehicles which are like companies but exist for technical reasons and they don't do anything per se, other than be a structure for passing money through or some such. Edge case.

FIBO's definition of Organization ... reinforces the idea that organizations are not themselves agents, and in fact in FIBO it is not a subclass of Agent.

True, but its a matter of linguistic convenience what it is that has intentions or does things. Facebook bought Instagram is not technically true, any more than an asteroid 'wants' to keep going in a singluar direction by laws of physics. It acts as if it wants to do that. THe people who run FB made a purchasing decision and excecuted it.