[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action.
This would be easier to discuss in the context of the Section 3 subsection on Joint Action. I would also like to see the subsection on Trust. Was this perhaps distributed while my email was down (Thursday July 16 to Monday July 20)? I only actually lost all mail from Thursday mid-day to Saturday afternoon. If not, is there any chance we'll have it before tomorrow'smeeting? Cheers, Rex Francis McCabe wrote: > Ken > I was NOT addressing trust in the write up on joint action. > > I think that there are genuinely two different notions of action: the > action that individual actors perform (including cutting down trees) > and the actions that they perform severally. > > I think that getting clarity about the relationship between > communicative actions and service actions is extremely beneficial. > Seeing the two side-by-side as it were solves an important > architectural problem. I admit that I fail to see why you cannot see > that. > > Remember that the purpose of interacting with services is to get > things done. But, as anyone who attends a lot of meetings will > understand, talking about solving problems is not the same thing as > actually solving them. > > Frank > > On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:28 AM, Laskey, Ken wrote: > >> Frank, >> >> Two points here: one for a clarification and the other still >> questioning the necessity of the elaboration. >> >> First, if I cut down a tree, is there a joint action? There is >> certainly a real world effect. >> >> I use this as my "action" scenario in order to avoid messages. >> Message exchange seems to always require joint action -- the speaker >> and the listener -- for anything to get done. The message exchange >> is by construction a joint action, and all the other levels of intent >> you mention often get masked. >> >> The concept of an action meant for different purposes is critical for >> trust because the question comes down to whether the individual >> intent of the parties will likely lead to acceptable RWEs, even if >> the intents are somewhat different. >> >> This leads me to the second point: what of all this is required to >> tell the story for the RA? Interaction is made up of joint actions, >> but when is it not sufficient to talk about interaction? We seem to >> do quite well in section 4, although it will take a bit of effort to >> reconstruct what Jeff and I decided when we first had the action to >> tackle this. As for trust, the initial write-up I did seemed to >> capture more than some folks felt necessary, and it made no mention >> of joint action. >> >> One of our principles is parsimony. I understand, although I still >> have a few questions on, your elaboration of joint action. The >> question is whether this is the most parsimonious way to tell the >> story. Of more concern, will anyone not part of our discussion >> understand it? >> >> Ken >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Francis McCabe [fmccabe@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:33 AM >> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA >> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action. >> >> A joint action is a coordinated set of actions involving the efforts >> of two or more actors to achieve an effect >> >> In any social context joint actions abound: people talking to each >> other, people buying and selling, people arranging their lives. In >> addition, joint action is at the heart of interactions within the >> context of a SOA ecosystem. >> >> There is another sense in which joint actions abound: even within a >> single incident of interaction there are typically several overlapping >> joint actions. >> >> For example, when one person says to another: "it is stuffy in here" >> there is an immediate sense in which there is a joint action -- a >> joint communicative action. The intended effect being that the >> listener believes that the speaker intends him to understand that the >> speaker believes that the atmosphere is uncomfortable. (The listener >> may also believe that the atmosphere *is* uncomfortable as a result of >> the communication.) >> >> However, in the right context, there may be another joint action: the >> apparent declaration may in fact be a command. The intent being that >> the speaker wishes the listener to understand that the door should be >> opened. >> >> There may be a further layer to this scenario: the speaker might be >> aware that there is someone who is waiting to be let in. The command >> to open the door is actually a command to admit the visitor to the room. >> >> Fundamentally all three of these senses of joint action are >> superimposed on top of each other. However, there is a strong sense in >> which the different joint actions may be quite interchangeable. For >> example, instead of declaring that the "room is stuffy", the speaker >> might have simply said "open the door". Or the speaker might have said >> "please let John in". In each case the effect would have been the same >> -- modulo the sensitivities of the speaker and listener -- the door >> being open and the visitor admitted to the room. >> >> The relationship between the communicative joint action: the utterance >> of the declaration and the command joint action is a `uses' >> relationship. The speaking joint action is used to convey the command >> joint action; which in turn is used to convey the visitor admittance >> action. >> >> In many situations the best predicate that describes the relationship >> between these different joint actions is the 'counts as' predicate. >> The utterance action counts as the command to open the door. The >> command to open the door counts as the request to admit the visitor. >> >> It can be extremely useful to identify and separate the different >> overlapping senses of joint action. It allows us to separately >> describe and process the communicative actions from the command joint >> actions. This, in turn, reflects the fact that each layer has its own >> logic and ontology. >> >> For example, at the utterance level, the issues are to do with the >> successful understanding of the content of the communication -- did >> the listener hear and understand the words, did the speaker intend to >> say them, and so on. >> >> At the level of the command to open the door, the issues center on >> whether there is a predisposition on the part of the listener to obey >> commands given to him by the speaker. >> >> In the context of a SOA ecosystem we can separately capture the logic >> and mechanics of what is involved in electronic communication -- the >> sending of messages, the security of the communication and so on; from >> the logic and mechanics of command -- does the listener believe that >> the speaker has the appropriate authority to issue the command. >> >> As with human communication, electronic interactions are similarly >> interchangeable: the commitment to purchase a book requires some form >> of communication between buyer and seller; but the purchase action >> itself is unchanged by the use of email or an HTTP post of an XML >> document. >> >> In summary, the concept of joint action allows us to honor the fact >> that both parties in an interaction are required for there to be an >> actual effect; it allows us to separate out the different levels of >> the interaction into appropriate semantic layers; and it allows us to >> recombine those layers in potentially different ways whilst still >> achieving the intended real world effects of action in a SOA ecosystem. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to 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]