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.
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-----
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-----
> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
>>>>>