Fwd: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I neglected to hit "reply-to-all" so I'm forwarding to the sc list.

Cheers,
Rex

>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:54:57 -0700
>To: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
>From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>This works for me.
>
>2. I prefer Joint Action as subclass of Action, but would not 
>quibble with particular use.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>
>>I believe that there are 4 'concepts' of action involved:
>>
>>1. The abstract sense of Action. Application of intent etc.
>>2. Abstract Joint Action (which is either a subclass of Action or a 
>>particular use of Action; not sure of the right relationship).
>>3. Communicative Action (which is a subclass of Abstract Joint Action)
>>4. Service Action which is an Action against a Service (which is 
>>described in the Action Model and the Process Model)
>>
>>3. and 4. are connected via the counts-as relationship:
>>
>>A valid Communicative Action counts as a Service Action
>>
>>At some level, all of these should be introduced and explained in Section 3.
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Fellow Explorers,
>>>
>>>We've had some very stimulating discussions over the past few 
>>>weeks but I feel there are other things caught in limbo until we 
>>>reach some consensus.  I don't think we are plagued by major 
>>>disagreements but rather the different facets of complexity for 
>>>the range of things we want to capture and make understandable to 
>>>a wider audience.
>>>
>>>So I think we need a plan for how to proceed.  The elements of 
>>>such a plan would cover
>>>1. capturing the different facets;
>>>2. capturing where in the document these facets currently live;
>>>3. work a consistent understanding that covers all the facets.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, this is not an 80-20 situation because a standard 
>>>that only covers 80% of the scope is looking for trouble.
>>>
>>>Now I would suggest an extended call (all day?) but I realize we 
>>>are all busy and that may not be feasible.  What's more is it may 
>>>not be productive unless we have all the background material 
>>>together going in.
>>>
>>>As a precursor to an extended meeting (or even a regular meeting), 
>>>is it possible for us to have a short list of questions and for 
>>>the author of each section to satisfy items 1 and 2 above through 
>>>the answers?  Would that be enough to help structure a productive 
>>>(and hopefully not too long) call?
>>>
>>>I haven't yet considered the questions, but figured I'd float the 
>>>idea and see if someone came up with something better.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Ken Laskey
>>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
>>>7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
>>>McLean VA 22102-7508
>>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and 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


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670