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

[Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>]

All true. But the point of the action hierarchy that I propose is that  
it connects a number of things that are difficult to connect otherwise.

As far as the listener 'being ready to listen', that is true. But the  
act of interaction requires both participants. The speaker has to be  
committed also. Of course, in general and in practice, we are not  
talking about single messages but conversations.

Some detailed responses:

1. Yes, more than a speaker and listener *are* required. That is one  
of the roles of the Execution Context -- to provide the path between  
the two. In more abstract terms, there is a medium of communication  
that all parties rely on to support their interactions -- one of the  
most basic assumptions that all parties must make is that the medium  
'works'. (Notwithstanding security challenges and interconnect  
challenges -- that is taken into account by 'works'.)

2. As far as a speaker providing intent without a listener that is  
true. But the CA is not *effective* without a listener. I can try to  
kick down the wall, but without a bulldozer I am likely to be  
ineffective. The action is the result of application of intent. The  
effectiveness depends on many factors, including the willingness of  
the listener to listen.

3. So, I agree about potential etc. That potential is part of the  
picture; definitely. I can understand most (I hope) of what any  
English language speaker is likely to utter. But I have not actually  
understood what has actually been spoken until someone actually says  
something that I can hear.

So, an actual interaction depends on senders and receivers. An actual  
interaction can be characterized as a series of successful joint  
actions -- each of which involves a speaker and listener.

One merit of this analysis is that it explains how you can have  
patterns of communication (MEPs) while separating the topic of  
communication. On the other hand, we can have service actions that are  
independent of the mode of communication. The connection between the  
two can be analyzed using the counts-as relation.

Note: I *was* hoping not to have to introduce the counts-as predicate.  
But now I see that we need it.

Frank




On Jun 9, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Laskey, Ken wrote:

> I agree that the speaker and listener are actively involved in  
> communication.  Our question is what is their involvement.  When  
> does listening include the activities that the speaker wishes to  
> follow from not only the listening but hearing and understanding.
>
> In the Action Model, the service identifies the messages it  
> understands when it is a listener.  It does not guarantee it will do  
> anything for any other messages.  It does not need a speaker present  
> to still understand those messages.
>
> So the disconnects are:
> 1. There seems to need more than a speaker and a listener to have a  
> useful service interaction, i.e. the listener has to commit to  
> initiated activity.  Our discussion doesn't include that.
> 2. The speaker can apply intent without the listener receiving the  
> message or responding.  There is action on the part of the speaker  
> but no interaction.
> 3. Action, or at least potential action, exists on the part of the  
> listener without any speaker.  There is potential for interaction,  
> there are prescribed steps in interaction, but there is no  
> interaction until until there is a speaker, an exchange of  
> information, and an understanding of that exchange.
>
> Ken
>
> P.S. We've been offlist for a while.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:frankmccabe@mac.com]
> Sent: Mon 6/9/2008 9:55 PM
> To: Laskey, Ken
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
>
> Ken
>   There is a book that I recommend that you read. It is called "Using
> Language" by Herbert Clark. It is pretty informal but gives an
> excellent account of the concepts involved in human communication, and
> by extension computer communication.
>
>   Essentially, the bottom line is that both speaker and listener are
> actively involved, and that the communication has not happened without
> both participating. And he also addresses (not in the same language)
> the counts-as relationship.
>
>   As for denial of service, etc., I agree that willingness is an
> essential part of what is going on. hence the active role of both
> parties!
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Laskey, Ken wrote:
>
> > Arghh!!!
> >
> > In email , I'll buy that the speaker creates and sends the message,
> > but the listener only becomes aware that the message exists.  The
> > speaker assumes whatever is listening will initiate the activity of
> > opening and reading.  As with a denial of service attack where it is
> > appropriate to withhold/withdraw willingness, whatever has the
> > listener may not process the email if they suspect embedded malware.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francis McCabe [mailto:frankmccabe@mac.com]
> > Sent: Mon 6/9/2008 7:54 PM
> > To: Laskey, Ken
> > Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
> >
> > No, this does not get the join action aspect.
> >
> > I admit that I thought some about the Patient in a CA. I believe  
> that
> > the Patient in a CA is the medium of communication. We jointly act  
> on
> > the email medium when we communicate by email. It is a little tricky
> > because there is some danger of infinite regress:
> >
> > I act on an email to compose it and to push it into the Internet.  
> You
> > act on the email to open it and read it. But these actions are the
> > actions of Speaking and Listening respectively. The Joint CA is the
> > combination of the two. In that world, we are using the Internet
> > (actually SMTP) as a means of communicating and we act on it by
> > sending and receiving messages (the messages become the  
> Instruments of
> > our CAs).
> >
> >
> > On Jun 9, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> >
> > > Wouldn't
> > >
> > > CA -> Agent -> Speaker=Initiator
> > > CA -> Instrument -> Message[Do ServiceActionPerformative]
> > > CA -> Patient -> Listener=Service
> > > CA -> Verb -> CA_Performative
> > >
> > > where I assume CA_Performative is pass message.  I can't see  
> having
> > > two Agents and no Patient.
> > >
> > >
> > > For a ServiceAction SA, we get
> > >
> > > SA -> Agent -> Initiator
> > > SA -> Instrument -> CA
> > > SA -> Patient -> Service
> > > SA -> Verb -> ServiceActionPerformative
> > >
> > > Is ServiceActionPerformative what I have called Initiating  
> Activity?
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > > On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
> > >
> > >> There is nothing about intent that denies join intent. A joint
> > >> action necessarily implies joint intent -- both speak and  
> listener
> > >> intend that there be a communication.
> > >>
> > >> And yes, the communicative action involves *both* the sender and
> > >> the receiver.
> > >>
> > >> And no, the service action is *not* singular: it is the actor
> > >> acting on the acted.
> > >>
> > >> If we expand the ontology of action a little bit:
> > >>
> > >> Action -> Agent
> > >> Action -> Instrument
> > >> Action -> Patient
> > >> Action -> Verb
> > >>
> > >> where Agent is the entity performing the action, Instrument is  
> the
> > >> tool with which the action is performed, Patient is the target of
> > >> the action and Verb is the action being performed.
> > >>
> > >> Then, for a CA, we get
> > >>
> > >> CA -> Agent -> [Speaker=Initiator, Listener=Service]
> > >> CA -> Instrument -> Message[Do ServiceActionPerformative]
> > >> CA -> Patient -> None
> > >> CA -> Verb -> CA_Performative
> > >>
> > >> For a ServiceAction SA, we get
> > >>
> > >> SA -> Agent -> Initiator
> > >> SA -> Instrument -> CA
> > >> SA -> Patient -> Service
> > >> SA -> Verb -> ServiceActionPerformative
> > >>
> > >> The counts-as relation has to map the two actions, probably as  
> here
> > >> by linking the Instrument of the CA to different parts of the SA,
> > >> as well as some implied linking between Listener/Service etc..
> > >>
> > >> This is probably a whole lot more detailed than we should go into
> > >> in the spec; but if *we* need to to convince ourselves, so be  
> it :)
> > >>
> > >> Frank
> > >>
> > >> On Jun 9, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I still have the question of whether Action as the application  
> of
> > >>> intent requires a receipt of that intent.  This is back to the
> > >>> singular vs. communicative nature of the Action.
> > >>>
> > >>> If the message is the Action, then the Action has to be both the
> > >>> sending AND receiving of the message in order for it to be a
> > >>> communicative action.  Intent sounds like one way; it is my
> > >>> motivation and the action is my acting on that motivation, but
> > >>> that is all separate from the receiver.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Service Action, OTOH, is singular on the side of the  
> service/
> > >>> receiver.  The service Action Model delineates what messages  
> need
> > >>> to be sent in order for certain "activities" to be carried out,
> > >>> leading to certain RWE.  The Action Model exists independent  
> of a
> > >>> speaker.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Communicative Action CANNOT count-as the Service Action
> > >>> because one requires a speaker and the other does not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ken
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> Ken Laskey
> > >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
> > >>> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:
> > 703-983-1379
> > >>> McLean VA 22102-7508
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Ken Laskey
> > > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
> > > 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:         
> 703-983-1379
> > > McLean VA 22102-7508
> > >
> >
> >
>
>