Re: [soa-rm-ra] meaning of delegation and adopting goals

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

This is where there were the two kinds of delegation: ambassador and  
(more active -- forget term used).  However, I think they follow the  
pattern that doesn't explicitly require chaining to C.  Here's my logic:

1. A has goals and expresses some level of intent to B.  A may not  
reveal its goals but just the intent it wants B to carry on.  B has  
its own goals and it will deal with A's intent in the context of its  
goals (and responsibilities, constraints, other I forget).  One of B's  
goals may be to be straightforward in what it will do with intent it  
is given, and so A can have a level of trust based on that commitment  
and past experience (A's or others) with B.

For B to satisfy its goals (and in this case, goals derived from the  
known intent of A), B may have to interact with C.  B now has goals  
and expresses some level of its intent to C.  A may or may not know B  
will interact with C; C may or may not know that the original intent  
came from A.  (Note, there may be transparency rules that require this  
knowledge, or specific information on whose behalf you operate may be  
necessary to establish whether B is authorized according to C.)  C has  
its own goals and it will deal with B's intent (maybe also knowing A's  
involvement) in the context of its goals.

And so on.

2. A needs to use B to interact with C.  A has reason to believe B  
acts in an ambassador role and will pass its intent to C.  B has its  
own goals and it will deal with A's intent in the context of its goals  
(and responsibilities, constraints, other I forget).  One of B's goals  
may be to be to act as an ambassador, and so A can have a level of  
trust based on that commitment and past experience (A's or others)  
with B.

C, knowing B acts as an ambassador, has its own goals and it will deal  
with A's intent in the context of its goals, possibly modified by B's  
involvement.

And so on.

So the different levels of delegation really has to do with the intent  
of the participant (to need or use an ambassador) and each step in the  
chain continues as a modified version of the one before it.

It's late and this goes a bit around in circles.  The main point is  
everyone works with facts they have and process those facts (which may  
include the intent of others) in the context of its own goals.

Hope this makes some sense in the morning.

Ken

On Feb 25, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Rex Brooks wrote:

> Looks good to me, but we need to extend to the transfer of some
> measure of shared goals (the intersection of A's & B's goals) to C
> and then to the RWE and any subsequent re-evaluation of the efficacy
> of the transfer of shared goals. Intent plays a role in this as do
> the other items cited in Dave's slide.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
> At 5:15 PM -0500 2/25/09, Laskey, Ken wrote:
>> From Rex's minutes
>>
>> it is asking another to adopt the goal associated with the action
>> with the expectation that the action will be done
>>
>> As I've mentioned before, I think we need to take a little different
>> twist.  As a parent, my children often have goals that I do not
>> share but for which they need actions from me in order to accomplish
>> those goals.  Now they know if they can identify a goal on my part
>> that will lead to actions which produce the real world effects they
>> want to see, then their argument is not for me to adopt their goals
>> but rather for me within my context to identify specific goals for
>> which I would take timely actions that would result in their desired
>> real world effects.  For example, they need a ride some place and I
>> have other stuff I need to do and don't want to take the time.
>> However, they note that we're running out of some groceries I
>> usually get from Costco and I really need to go shopping.  Oh, by
>> the way, where they want to go is in the vicinity of Costco and they
>> could just ride along.
>>
>> In summary, delegation could be seen as
>> 1)      A has a goal and convinces B to adopt the goal, and B take
>> actions that result in real world effects which leads to satisfying
>> the common goal.
>> 2)      A has a goal and raises issues to B that results in B
>> adopting goals in the B context and take actions that result in real
>> world effects which in the process of satisfying the goals of B also
>> satisfies the goal of A.
>>
>> For everyone's consideration.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-898-0670

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508