Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

I still have the question of whether Action as the application of intent requires a receipt of that intent.  This is back to the singular vs. communicative nature of the Action.

If the message is the Action, then the Action has to be both the sending AND receiving of the message in order for it to be a communicative action.  Intent sounds like one way; it is my motivation and the action is my acting on that motivation, but that is all separate from the receiver.

The Service Action, OTOH, is singular on the side of the service/receiver.  The service Action Model delineates what messages need to be sent in order for certain "activities" to be carried out, leading to certain RWE.  The Action Model exists independent of a speaker.

The Communicative Action CANNOT count-as the Service Action because one requires a speaker and the other does not.

Ken

On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:

I believe that there are 4 'concepts' of action involved:

1. The abstract sense of Action. Application of intent etc.

2. Abstract Joint Action (which is either a subclass of Action or a particular use of Action; not sure of the right relationship).

3. Communicative Action (which is a subclass of Abstract Joint Action)

4. Service Action which is an Action against a Service (which is described in the Action Model and the Process Model)

3. and 4. are connected via the counts-as relationship:

A valid Communicative Action counts as a Service Action

At some level, all of these should be introduced and explained in Section 3.

Frank

On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

Dear Fellow Explorers,

We've had some very stimulating discussions over the past few weeks but I feel there are other things caught in limbo until we reach some consensus.  I don't think we are plagued by major disagreements but rather the different facets of complexity for the range of things we want to capture and make understandable to a wider audience.

So I think we need a plan for how to proceed.  The elements of such a plan would cover

1. capturing the different facets;

2. capturing where in the document these facets currently live;

3. work a consistent understanding that covers all the facets.

Unfortunately, this is not an 80-20 situation because a standard that only covers 80% of the scope is looking for trouble.

Now I would suggest an extended call (all day?) but I realize we are all busy and that may not be feasible.  What's more is it may not be productive unless we have all the background material together going in.

As a precursor to an extended meeting (or even a regular meeting), is it possible for us to have a short list of questions and for the author of each section to satisfy items 1 and 2 above through the answers?  Would that be enough to help structure a productive (and hopefully not too long) call?

I haven't yet considered the questions, but figured I'd float the idea and see if someone came up with something better.

Ken

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934

7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934

7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508