OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


Understood, Frank,

I agree. We need to get this right.

Cheers,
Rex

At 9:04 AM -0700 6/10/08, Francis McCabe wrote:
>I think that we need to be clear about the distinction between 
>action and effect.
>
>So, whether or not it is effective, action is the application of 
>intent .... etc.
>
>The effect of performing an action is captured in the RWE.
>
>So, if a speaker says something, and noone was listening then:
>
>1. There was no communicative action
>2. The RWE was minimal (it is never completely null, but presumably 
>no answer counts as much less of an effect than intended).
>
>For there to be a CA, there must have been some level of engagement, 
>and hence some level of RWE. But it is still possible for that to be 
>less than expected.
>
>It is possible for a speaker to intend to engage in a CA; without it 
>happening. Both parties must intend for it to happen -- hence the 
>joint part of the joint action.
>
>Frank
>
>P.S. To Rex: this discussion is clearly important for our own 
>understanding. It is a separate question as to how much this affects 
>the spec.
>
>
>On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:59 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]