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: FW: SOA-RA comments.



Attached is a copy of the tutorial Frank presented for us this morning as part of a SOA tutorial series being internally sponsored.   It was excellent and thanks Frank!


Note there are some updated visual models, particularly for the service ecosystem view.  We’ll want to discuss these as we go through Section 3 issues against the PRD 1 and, of course, discussion points to be addressed during our forthcoming face-to-face.


Also, below is a message from one of our principal engineers who is very active in OMG working the Executable UML Foundation spec and emerging standard with Stephen Mellor et al.  He’s the fella who was asking all the questions Frank.  In any event, I will ask him to provide some feedback once we go to PRD 2.




 - Jeff



From: Nicolas Rouquette [mailto:nicolas.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Jeffrey A. Estefan
Subject: SOA-RA comments.



Please pass along this feedback to the SOA-RA group.

1) accidental avalanche vs. intentional avalanche.

Could we use SOA-RA to specify an insurance policy providing coverage for the real-world effects of the former type of accident but not the latter? If we can, how would we use the SOA-RA policy specification to determine whether a particular  avalanche incident was factually accidental or incidental?

2) UML class diagrams help but are not enough to communicate the conceptual distinctions and ontological commitments made in organizing the SOA-RA model.

For example:

- slide 8: Acting in a social context.

I suggest looking at JPL's State Analysis methodology for possible ideas for explicitly characterizing:
- what a measurable state of the world is (i.e., a state variable characterizing the state of some item in the real world)
- how a measurable state of the world relates to a goal (i.e., it is a constraint on state)
- how actions affect the real world (i.e., actions coordinate the execution of commands)
- how actors perceive the real-world effect of actions performed (i.e., using measurements)
In this sense, an SOA is a society of distributed, loosely-coupled goal-oriented control systems.

- slide 10: joint action vs. action

It seems that if you distinguish between action & joint action, then there should be a distinction between intent and joint intention. Do those distinctions really matter at this very high level of abstraction? I'm not sure. I think that it might be useful to replace joint action with a more general notion of goal-elaborated plan of action. If the model allows for actors to have shared goals, then a joint action could be explained in the context of a plan elaborating how the actors involved either coordinate or compete in achieving the goal intent.

- using UML class diagrams.

Class diagrams are useful but it is very hard to get a grasp of the underlying ontology of concepts and relationships.
It is also difficult to get a sense of the different kinds of behaviors that are in scope in the SOA-RA.
Most of these behaviors are described in plain English in the subtext of the slides.
At minimum, it is important to have a catalog of all of the behaviors that pertain to the SOA-RA model.

-- Nicolas.

RA for JPL.pdf

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