Re: [soa-rm-ra] point of action

[Danny Thornton <danny_thornton2@yahoo.com>]

Whoops, a gremlin in my keyboard must have pressed the
send button while I was typing that last message.

I would like to answer the following question in the
RA when describing Visibility and personal, group, and
global registries.

At what point can we tell the implementation
architects that there will be standards and
technologies to support this aspect of the RA?

Danny


--- Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:

> OK for now.  Hopefully the use of poa in the RA will
> clarify things 
> or this is going to be a bear to write up for our
> audience.
> 
> Ken
> 
> At 11:37 AM 8/17/2006, Francis McCabe wrote:
> >The POA concept is a general concept that is not
> limited to services.
> >So, perhaps, that is what was going though Danny's
> mind -)
> >As to private vs public, we are going to get
> similar issues with the
> >Point of Decision and Point of Enforcement of
> policies.
> >
> >One important place for the POA in the RA is as the
> start of the
> >chain of events that lead to the real world effect.
> Another is that
> >the POA acts as one place were policies must be
> applied. (I cannot
> >make up my mind exactly how POA relates POD and
> POE.) Of course, this
> >is but one place where policies are applied in the
> RA.
> >
> >Frank
> >On Aug 17, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> >
> >>Where it fits in the RA is still my question.  In
> the example in
> >>his earlier email, Danny says
> >>
> >>To draw another analogy for the point of action, I
> >>know your mind will be the point of action for
> >>processing this e-mail as you read the e-mail. 
> The
> >>e-mail address and the english language is like a
> >>service interface.
> >>
> >>If this example aligns with your meaning, then
> isn't my mind part
> >>of the opaque implementation?  [The jokes are
> altogether too
> >>obvious so first answer the question and later we
> can collect the
> >>best Ken-related responses in a follow-on thread.
> :-) ]
> >>
> >>Ken
> >>
> >>On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Francis McCabe
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The action being referred to in a service
> interaction is not
> >>>really any private action. As you use a service
> to do something
> >>>then you are performing an action. (There may be
> consequential
> >>>events that follow that are internal.) That
> action has a point of
> >>>action.
> >>>
> >>>Note that with the action-at-a-distance analogy
> getting clarity on
> >>>when and where the action is performed may be
> quite important. For
> >>>example, if you send a message declaring that you
> have agreed to a
> >>>contract, from the service provider's PoV, it is
> not until it
> >>>'groks' the message that it considers that you
> have actually agreed.
> >>>
> >>>Frank
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Aug 17, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>see below
> >>>>
> >>>>At 09:18 AM 8/17/2006, Rex Brooks wrote:
> >>>>>I hope no one is surprised if I quibble with
> this particular
> >>>>>definition, which comes close, in my opinion,
> but fall just
> >>>>>short of the mark. I take exception with the
> choice of using the
> >>>>>concept of force per se, though I do understand
> and agree with
> >>>>>the requirement of making "action" transitive.
> I would apply a
> >>>>>small bit of mental jiu jitsu on this
> definition, thus:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Action: the application of 'intent' to achieve
> an effect by an
> >>>>>agent on an object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thus, the application of "intent" applies
> equally well to
> >>>>>choosing to do "nothing" and allow
> inertia/momentum to achieve
> >>>>>an effect,
> >>>>
> >>>>but the application of nothing does not require
> an agent as the
> >>>>transferral entity if there is nothing to
> transfer, unless
> >>>>however you identify the agent as a way of
> establishing context
> >>>>for your intended nothing.
> >>>>
> >>>>>or to require action by some other agent to
> achieve, prevent or
> >>>>>allow an effect. In the study of heuristics,
> one of the least
> >>>>>well explored results is exactly this, the
> intentional refusal
> >>>>>to act per se, which, I contend, constitutes a
> decision, which
> >>>>>is, in and of itself, an action at a
> choice-point branching of a
> >>>>>decision-tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>BTW, this answers the last question below: Yes!
> and full
> >>>>>responsibility or culpability applies. Needless
> to say, this is
> >>>>>utterly critical to security. Choose not to
> apply a patch in
> >>>>>time, and you are caught holding the hot potato
> if bad things
> >>>>>happen to good systems.
> >>>>
> >>>>So the follow-up question is: what can be
> identified as the poa
> >>>>while still maintaining the SOA principle of
> opacity of the
> >>>>implementation of services and their underlying
> capabilities?
> >>>>
> >>>>>Cheers,
> >>>>>Rex
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>At 7:55 AM -0400 8/17/06, Ken Laskey wrote:
> >>>>>>Some comments from Frank that didn't get back
> to the list:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ken:
> >>>>>>  The POA *is* the action as it is applied.
> >>>>>>  If the service is the glove, the POA is the
> iron fist:)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Different people have different definitions
> of action, (try
> >>>>>>define:action in google). None of these
> definitions is all that
> >>>>>>satisfactory to me.
> >>>>>>  My definition is adapted from John Sowa:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Action: the application of force by an agent
> on an object with
> >>>>>>the intention of achieving an effect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  I.e., its a kind of event. The POA is a
> characterization of
> >>>>>>that event. (One reason I like this definition
> is that is
> >>>>>>includes all human actions but excludes rocks
> rolling down the
> >>>>>>hill hitting other rocks.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  The service interface is the
> characterization of what it means
> >>>>>>to perform an action. It is not the action
> itself though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Hope that this throws a little light on the
> matter.
> >>>>>>Frank
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Per Danny's response, I think he caught my
> question well with
> >>>>>>the final line of his response below:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>One question
> >>>>>>>we can ask is can we identify a point of
> action
> >>>>>>>meaningful to the reference architecture that
> would
> >>>>>>>not have a service interface?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ken
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com