Ted Gemberling said:
> If we recognize that a machine can in some instances be a person
> bibliographically, I still don't see the need for the Agent superclass.
> As Bob said, persons are not always agents, so why put them in
> the superclass? Agency is better treated as a relation.
Would you feel better if the Agent entity were named something else, like Potential Agents? As currently defined in the draft, Agent is not just things that are acting as agents. It is defined as all things that _can_ act as agents. Just because something is identified in the model as an Agent does not mean that it has ever acted as a creator. I think what you are feeling is a reaction to the name of the entity rather than the definition. That's the problem with names of concepts, sometimes.
[log in to unmask]