Colleagues,
The more I do archeology on this subtle yet complex concept of "Action" the more I realized we have failed to clearly articulate it properly, at least on two fronts.
First, if we agree that Action is "the application of intent by a participant to achieve a RWE" then where the heck does the Service fit w.r.t. Action ???? In the RM, we defined the notion of an Action Model as "the permissible actions against the service." Yet in the RA's Stakeholders and Participants Model, a Service is not a Participant.
Second (the point I was trying to make during yesterday's call), Action, again, is defined to be the application of intent by a [singular] participant to achieve a RWE (emphasis of singular is mine). However, Joint Action is defined to by "an action involving the efforts of two or more participants to achieve a RWE." How in the heck can Joint Action be a specialization of Action the way we defined Action ???? It cannot ! If Action (as we defined it) applies to a singular entity, i.e., a participant, then how in the heck can an action by two or more participants be a specialization of the act of a single participant. This is just nonsense. And one of the reasons our proposed visual models are failing over and over again.
We NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT and frankly (no pun intended Frank), we are off course, at least in the tar pits of my world.
- Jeff