RE: [soa-rm-ra] collected concept definitions per action

Frank,

Most of what I’ve put together is just a cut and paste of what is in the document. I did revise the definitions of intent and commitment because your changes in response to my comments missed the mark; more on that below. If some of the model labels I used don’t catch the proper essence, we can change the labels or possibly that indicates some needed changes in the words.

Now to Intent and Commitment.

Intent is not internal planning and orienting. The online definition is “Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.” Synonyms are intention, intent, purpose, goal, end, aim, object, objective. There is no planning or orienting.

The online definition of commitment is “A pledge to do.” The participant doesn’t ensure the commitment is satisfied but they state what they intend.

Additionally, you note “rights are part of a social structure. Permissions are part of policies.” Yes, we may currently discuss rights as connected to words about social structure and we may discuss permissions as connected to words about policy, but either the definitions should make clear how the two are different or we should use the same term/concept in both places. This applies equally to the other definitions I suggest are redundant.

Again, my *intent* was a reasonably complete summary in one eyeful of what is already there.

Ken

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

Dr. Kenneth Laskey

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

7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fmccabe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 2:25 PM
To: Laskey, Ken
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] collected concept definitions per action

Some immediate thoughts:

1. In general, we are only interested in measurable things. So, there is no sense in talking about unmeasurable state.

We had a lot of discussions about state in the RM days. We came to the conclusion that state is characterized by facts but is probably not the same as facts.

2. We have generally avoided cardinality unless needed. Cardinality is not needed for private state.

3. The real world effect should refer to the world, not to what is known about the world.

4. Intent DOES NOT need to be stated. Generally it is NOT stated. Indeed, most people rely on evaluations of intent (much like trust) as opposed to stated intent. We should keep closer to the original definition:

Intent is the internal planning and orienting of an actor to achieve an objective

5. Commitment is not directly connected to intent. e.g., I promise that it will be sunny tomorrow. Should not be unnecessarily connected to shared anything. Original definition:

A commitment is a social fact about the future that a participant is responsible for ensuring is satisfied.

6. The concept of permission is a standard part of the policy ontology. Not inherently connected to social structure. A right is a permission that is connected to a social structure.

7. Achievement should not be part of obligation - it implies that the actor is not currently in the desired state. Similarly for permission.

8. I am not against prohibition, except that it is a form of negative permission/obligation.

9. goals are internal, purposes are external. I do not have a purpose but I do have goals.

10. rights are part of a social structure. Permissions are part of policies.

11. Ditto for obligation and responsibility

On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:

soa-rm-ra message