[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] and one more thing on the permission, obligation, ... topics related to policy and trust
I'd connect the two through commitment. A commitment to seek a social structure's goal is similar to, but not identical to the intent to undertake a specific action. Cheers, Rex At 2:10 PM -0800 2/20/09, Francis McCabe wrote: >I dont think we should mix this form of intent >with the intent to perform an action. > >On Feb 20, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: > >>Jim, >> >>That's fine by me. The Intent definition is >>probably the one most in debate because we had >>inadvertently defined it multiple times and I >>don't recall the final resolution. >> >>My main intent (sic) in the proposed >>definitions was to lead into a connection >>between social structure and governance. The >>visual model would be >> >><pastedGraphic.png> >> >>For completeness of context, here is the proposed text that would follow: >> >>1.1.1 Social Structures and Governance >> >>A social structure may or may not have a formal >>governance structure. For example, a group of >>individuals may agree that every Wednesday >>night those who can be at a certain gym will >>choose teams and play basketball. There is only >>a loose understanding, possibly resulting in >>too many people some nights and too few on >>others, but that may be sufficient for the >>needs of the participants. A formalization >>would be to organize a league with identifiable >>teams and a schedule of play. This >>formalization introduces the rudimentary levels >>of governance. >> >>Given that SOA mediates important aspect of >>participant relationships, it follows that >>there are rights and responsibilities that >>require enforcement by the social structure and >>that the SOA itself must reflect the >>requirements of the social structure itself. In >>the Reference Architecture, we are concerned >>primarily with social structures that reflect >>the anticipated participants in SOA-based >>systems; these are often embodied in legal and >>quasi-legal frameworks; i.e., they have some >>rules that are commonly understood. >> >>For example, a corporation is a common kind of >>social structure, as is a fishing club. At the >>other extreme, the legal frameworks of entire >>countries and regions also count as social >>structures. >> >>It is not necessarily the case that the social >>structures involved in a service interaction >>are explicitly identified by the participants. >>For example, when a customer buys a book over >>the Internet, the social structure that defines >>the validity of the transaction is often the >>legal framework of the region associated with >>the book vendor. This legal jurisdiction >>qualification is typically buried in the fine >>print of the service description. >> >>The models for governance are introduced under >>the Owning SOA view, but here we discuss >>consistency with the model for social structure. >> >>Governance >> >>Governance is establishing the necessary >>framework and processes to formalize the rights >>and responsibilities defined by the social >>structure. >> >>The motivation for establishing a social >>structure is to organize a group of >>participants around predictable rules and >>responsibilities, and to have a system in which >>there can be enforcement of the same. >> >>There are numerous parallels between the social >>structure model in Figure 8 and the governance >>models in the Owning a SOA view: >> >>· For formal governance, the collective >>social structure identifies Leadership as a >>focal point. >> >>· Whereas the less formal social >>structure defines expectations in the form of >>rights and responsibilities and an appropriate >>level of enforcement (e.g. someone could become >>a social outcast), the more formal Leadership >>puts governance mechanisms in place so there >>are safeguards for clarity and fair treatment. >> >>· The parallels between a general social >>structure and formal governance proceed through >>to ad hoc agreements vs. formal management and >>commonly desired real world effects. >> >>As a participant can be a member of more than >>one social structure, so a participant can fall >>under more than one governance structure. These >>may be hierarchical or parallel chains with >>overlapping and possibly inconsistent goals. >> >> >>On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:55 PM, James Odell wrote: >> >>>Ken >>> >>>> Intent >>>> >>>> Intent is a willingness by a member of a social structure to perform >>>> actions to achieve a stated goal. >>> >>>Hmmm. My takeaway on intention involves being >>>bent on, strenuously occupied or resolved to >>>do something (based on a goal). Intent seems >>>actively inclined to act whereas willingness >>>seems passive. >>> >>>How about: >>> >>>"Intent is an inclination by a member of a >>>social structure to perform actions that >>>achieve a stated goal." >>> >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Jim >>> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Ken Laskey >>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>McLean VA 22102-7508 >> > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 1004.p7s ( / ) (01360C57) -- 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]