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] Diagramming trust - another take


OK, guys, think out of the box/house.

The ownership of the house provides one aspect of an ownership  
boundary, but we're being overly restrictive if we think of the goal  
as only being the deed or the mortgage.

I bought my house with the idea that I was creating an environment to  
raise my children.  The ownership boundary was more than just the  
walls of the house or the property boundary registered with the  
county.  There are certain modes of behavior (constraints) expected  
within that ownership boundary ("I don't care what you can do at  
John's house, you don't do it here") and the people within that  
boundary understand the expectations (goals) that set the context.

I am not arguing for the exact models I provided but I do strongly  
encourage you to get beyond just the ownership of a thing.

Ken

On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:

> Yes, ownership is definitely a state. The point was that stated goals
> are not all that literally reliable. I think reputation and the
> internal assessment that constitutes trust must use goals as usable
> intermediary formulations against which the assessment or perception
> takes place. We take stated goals as a form of code, such as you
> related, Bob. Might be wise to imply that or else say it explicitly.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
> At 8:46 AM -0500 4/6/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
>> Again, isn't ownership a state, not an action.  When I own a house  
>> I can
>> decide who is allowed in and who isn't.  The boundary, in our culture
>> starts either at the door for a condo or the property line for a  
>> house.
>> But I can demolish the house and plant corn or flowers...what  
>> happens to
>> the house I decide (governance...every man's house is his  
>> castle????).
>> Likewise, with services, if I own it, I can decide (govern) who  
>> uses it
>> and for what purpose.  I can stop offering the service, I can offer  
>> it
>> free, or conditionally--my decision.  However, once I rent our my  
>> house
>> or allow organizations to use my service, I now have obligations that
>> are implies or explicitly stated in the "contract."  And the T&Cs of
>> that contract had better match my policies, or I am SOL.
>>
>> PS--My experience going through 5 or 6 mergers is that there is no  
>> such
>> thing...all of them have been acquisitions and as soon as the
>> acquisition has taken place, the baby is thrown out with the bath  
>> water,
>> keeping only those few parts for which the acquisition was  
>> made...this
>> is the only way large companies, otherwise on the going out of  
>> business
>> curve avoid going out of business.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:24 AM
>> To: Rex Brooks; Ellinger, Robert S (IS); Ken Laskey; James Odell
>> Cc: David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
>>
>> Of course the thing owned has boundaries that the owner in concert  
>> with
>> social facts establishes. I don't think it much matters what the  
>> goal is
>> or is not. CA bought Platinum Technologies. Said that they wanted to
>> incorporate it in their offerings and did not carry through on that.
>> (What a surprise!).
>>
>> H-P bought Compaq and the same thing happened. The point is that  
>> stated
>> goals are not necessarily true.
>>
>> RWE: The competitor was effectively eliminated. Wonder what'll  
>> happen if
>> IBM is allowed to buy Sun? Whatever happens will likely be in what  
>> IBM
>> collectively and managerially decides is in its interest, not the
>> public's or the economy's interests, but we will be affected,
>> regardless.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rex
>>
>> At 6:14 AM -0700 4/6/09, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>> Its not the boundary of the house, Bob,
>>>
>>> Its the boundary of the owner. You still own the house even if you  
>>> are
>>> on vacation on the other side of the world, and if you haven't  
>>> invested
>>
>>> in adequate security, the boundary stays with you while a group of
>>> burglars slips in ... just kidding! ;-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rex
>>>
>>> At 7:39 AM -0500 4/6/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
>>>> Ken:
>>>>
>>>> I opened the first diagram and was immediately confused.  When I  
>>>> "own"
>>
>>>> a house I have neither goals or constraints (other than paying the
>>>> taxes on the place) so how does the diagram define the boundary  
>>>> of my
>> house?
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:06 AM
>>>> To: James Odell
>>>> Cc: David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After another long talk with Dave Ellis, I am again inspired to  
>>>> try to
>>
>>>> express some ideas, and this time I come with definitions and
>> diagrams.
>>>>
>>>> Goal: a desired set of real world effects
>>>>
>>>> Goal may be that the real world effects are realized, avoided, or  
>>>> some
>>
>>>> combination.
>>>>
>>>> Constraint: a specified set of real world effects that an actor is
>>>>    (1) limited from pursuing or being responsible for indirectly
>>>> causing, or
>>>>    (2) responsible for pursuing
>>>>
>>>> Ownership Boundary: the extent of an identifiable set of actors
>>>> sharing a common set of goals and constraints, and other common
>>>> entities through which the goals and constraints can be expressed.
>>>>
>>>> A given actor may reside within one or more ownership boundaries.
>>>> There may be agreed upon protocols for interactions that cross
>>>> ownership boundaries or an actor crossing an ownership boundary may
>>>> independently need to resolve any mismatches.
>>>>
>>>> Reputation: a property of a given actor assigned by other actors  
>>>> based
>>
>>>> on the accumulated experience experience of the other actors on the
>>>> extent to which real world effects resulting from interaction  
>>>> with the
>>
>>>> given actor are assessed as desirable, neutral, or undesirable.
>>>>
>>>> Other definitions are needed but I was concentrating on the  
>>>> diagrams
>>>> that follow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC  
>>>> that
>>>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to 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
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to 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
>
>
> -- 
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-898-0670

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







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