[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
Understood, Frank, I agree. We need to get this right. Cheers, Rex At 9:04 AM -0700 6/10/08, Francis McCabe wrote: >I think that we need to be clear about the distinction between >action and effect. > >So, whether or not it is effective, action is the application of >intent .... etc. > >The effect of performing an action is captured in the RWE. > >So, if a speaker says something, and noone was listening then: > >1. There was no communicative action >2. The RWE was minimal (it is never completely null, but presumably >no answer counts as much less of an effect than intended). > >For there to be a CA, there must have been some level of engagement, >and hence some level of RWE. But it is still possible for that to be >less than expected. > >It is possible for a speaker to intend to engage in a CA; without it >happening. Both parties must intend for it to happen -- hence the >joint part of the joint action. > >Frank > >P.S. To Rex: this discussion is clearly important for our own >understanding. It is a separate question as to how much this affects >the spec. > > >On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:59 AM, Ken Laskey wrote: > >>I don't dispute the idea that for there to be communications and >>*effective* application of intent, there needs to be a speaker and >>a listener and they have to actively participate and understand >>each other. The question is how this relates to the thing(s) we >>call Action. >> >>Let me try to capture this in a couple questions: >> >>- If a speaker does something that s/he believe is an application >>of intent but it fails, what has happened? Does it matter if the >>application was insufficient and would never work or if this >>instance of the application failed but in general it would work? >>Does it matter if there was no listener or if the listener, say as >>a defensive maneuver, didn't respond? Does it matter if there is >>misunderstanding of the message or the RWE and what results is not >>in line with the original intent? >>For the case where we have an instance failure, we'll have a >>challenge explaining how someone doing the exact same thing is >>sometimes applying intent and sometimes not. >> >>- If the application of intent >> (1) the creation and sending of the message, or >> (2) the sending (speaker) and receiving (listener) of the message, or >> (3) the sending (speaker), receiving (listener), and activity >>initiation in response (who wanted listening to occur)? >>Whichever one (or combination) you pick, please relate it back to >>the Action Model. >> >>Ken >> >>On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Francis McCabe wrote: >> >>>I mis-stated something last night: >>> >>>>2. As far as a speaker providing intent without a listener that >>>>is true. But the CA is not *effective* without a listener. >>> >>>This is true; but on reflection, it is beside the point. >>> >>>The critical point is that there can be no act of communication -- >>>no application of intent -- unless there is both a listener and >>>speaker. So, if I talk to an empty room, I am talking but not >>>communicating. >>> >>>On the other hand, even when we are communicating, it does not >>>mean that it is successful communication: I can listen to you, and >>>still fail to understand/act what you are saying. >>> >>>Frank >>> >>> >>> >>>On Jun 9, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Laskey, Ken wrote: >>> >>>>I agree that the speaker and listener are actively involved in >>>>communication. Our question is what is their involvement. When >>>>does listening include the activities that the speaker wishes to >>>>follow from not only the listening but hearing and understanding. >>>> >>>>In the Action Model, the service identifies the messages it >>>>understands when it is a listener. It does not guarantee it will >>>>do anything for any other messages. It does not need a speaker >>>>present to still understand those messages. >>>> >>>>So the disconnects are: >>>>1. There seems to need more than a speaker and a listener to have >>>>a useful service interaction, i.e. the listener has to commit to >>>>initiated activity. Our discussion doesn't include that. >>>>2. The speaker can apply intent without the listener receiving >>>>the message or responding. There is action on the part of the >>>>speaker but no interaction. >>>>3. Action, or at least potential action, exists on the part of >>>>the listener without any speaker. There is potential for >>>>interaction, there are prescribed steps in interaction, but there >>>>is no interaction until until there is a speaker, an exchange of >>>>information, and an understanding of that exchange. >>>> >>>>Ken >>>> >>>>P.S. We've been offlist for a while. >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Francis McCabe [mailto:frankmccabe@mac.com] >>>>Sent: Mon 6/9/2008 9:55 PM >>>>To: Laskey, Ken >>>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action >>>> >>>>Ken >>>>There is a book that I recommend that you read. It is called "Using >>>>Language" by Herbert Clark. It is pretty informal but gives an >>>>excellent account of the concepts involved in human communication, and >>>>by extension computer communication. >>>> >>>>Essentially, the bottom line is that both speaker and listener are >>>>actively involved, and that the communication has not happened without >>>>both participating. And he also addresses (not in the same language) >>>>the counts-as relationship. >>>> >>>>As for denial of service, etc., I agree that willingness is an >>>>essential part of what is going on. hence the active role of both >>>>parties! >>>> >>>>Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Laskey, Ken wrote: >>>> >>>>> Arghh!!! >>>>> >>>>> In email , I'll buy that the speaker creates and sends the message, >>>>> but the listener only becomes aware that the message exists. The >>>>> speaker assumes whatever is listening will initiate the activity of >>>>> opening and reading. As with a denial of service attack where it is >>>>> appropriate to withhold/withdraw willingness, whatever has the >>>>> listener may not process the email if they suspect embedded malware. >>>>> >>>>> Ken >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:frankmccabe@mac.com] >>>>> Sent: Mon 6/9/2008 7:54 PM >>>>> To: Laskey, Ken >>>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action >>>>> >>>>> No, this does not get the join action aspect. >>>>> >>>>> I admit that I thought some about the Patient in a CA. I believe that >>>>> the Patient in a CA is the medium of communication. We jointly act on >>>>> the email medium when we communicate by email. It is a little tricky >>>>> because there is some danger of infinite regress: >>>>> >>>>> I act on an email to compose it and to push it into the Internet. You >>>>> act on the email to open it and read it. But these actions are the >>>>> actions of Speaking and Listening respectively. The Joint CA is the >>>>> combination of the two. In that world, we are using the Internet >>>>> (actually SMTP) as a means of communicating and we act on it by >>>>> sending and receiving messages (the messages become the Instruments of >>>>> our CAs). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Wouldn't >>>>> > >>>>> > CA -> Agent -> Speaker=Initiator >>>>> > CA -> Instrument -> Message[Do ServiceActionPerformative] >>>>> > CA -> Patient -> Listener=Service >>>>> > CA -> Verb -> CA_Performative >>>>> > >>>>> > where I assume CA_Performative is pass message. I can't see having >>>>> > two Agents and no Patient. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > For a ServiceAction SA, we get >>>>> > >>>>> > SA -> Agent -> Initiator >>>>> > SA -> Instrument -> CA >>>>> > SA -> Patient -> Service >>>>> > SA -> Verb -> ServiceActionPerformative >>>>> > >>>>> > Is ServiceActionPerformative what I have called Initiating Activity? >>>>> > >>>>> > Ken >>>>> > >>>>> > On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> There is nothing about intent that denies join intent. A joint >>>>> >> action necessarily implies joint intent -- both speak and listener >>>>> >> intend that there be a communication. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> And yes, the communicative action involves *both* the sender and >>>>> >> the receiver. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> And no, the service action is *not* singular: it is the actor >>>>> >> acting on the acted. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If we expand the ontology of action a little bit: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Action -> Agent >>>>> >> Action -> Instrument >>>>> >> Action -> Patient >>>>> >> Action -> Verb >>>>> >> >>>>> >> where Agent is the entity performing the action, Instrument is the >>>>> >> tool with which the action is performed, Patient is the target of >>>>> >> the action and Verb is the action being performed. >>>> > >> >>>>> >> Then, for a CA, we get >>>>> >> >>>>> >> CA -> Agent -> [Speaker=Initiator, Listener=Service] >>>>> >> CA -> Instrument -> Message[Do ServiceActionPerformative] >>>>> >> CA -> Patient -> None >>>>> >> CA -> Verb -> CA_Performative >>>>> >> >>>>> >> For a ServiceAction SA, we get >>>>> >> >>>>> >> SA -> Agent -> Initiator >>>>> >> SA -> Instrument -> CA >>>>> >> SA -> Patient -> Service >>>>> >> SA -> Verb -> ServiceActionPerformative >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The counts-as relation has to map the two actions, probably as here >>>>> >> by linking the Instrument of the CA to different parts of the SA, >>>>> >> as well as some implied linking between Listener/Service etc.. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This is probably a whole lot more detailed than we should go into >>>>> >> in the spec; but if *we* need to to convince ourselves, so be it :) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Frank >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Jun 9, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> 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 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> > 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 >> >> >> >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS >at: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]