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

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

I don't dispute the idea that for there to be communications and  
*effective* application of intent, there needs to be a speaker and a  
listener and they have to actively participate and understand each  
other.  The question is how this relates to the thing(s) we call Action.

Let me try to capture this in a couple questions:

- If a speaker does something that s/he believe is an application of  
intent but it fails, what has happened?  Does it matter if the  
application was insufficient and would never work or if this instance  
of the application failed but in general it would work?  Does it  
matter if there was no listener or if the listener, say as a defensive  
maneuver, didn't respond?  Does it matter if there is misunderstanding  
of the message or the RWE and what results is not in line with the  
original intent?
For the case where we have an instance failure, we'll have a challenge  
explaining how someone doing the exact same thing is sometimes  
applying intent and sometimes not.

- If the application of intent
    (1) the creation and sending of the message, or
    (2) the sending (speaker) and receiving (listener) of the message,  
or
    (3) the sending (speaker), receiving (listener), and activity  
initiation in response (who wanted listening to occur)?
Whichever one (or combination) you pick, please relate it back to the  
Action Model.

Ken

On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Francis McCabe wrote:

> 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
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508