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

[Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>]

I mis-stated something last night:


> 2. As far as a speaker providing intent without a listener that is  
> true. But the CA is not *effective* without a listener.

This is true; but on reflection, it is beside the point.

The critical point is that there can be no act of communication -- no  
application of intent -- unless there is both a listener and speaker.  
So, if I talk to an empty room, I am talking but not communicating.

On the other hand, even when we are communicating, it does not mean  
that it is successful communication: I can listen to you, and still  
fail to understand/act what you are saying.

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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>