| This merely notes that a concern I raised earlier already seems to be addressed.
Ken On May 14, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: This is getting way off point. We need to focus on trust. What it is, and what the key relationships are. If we need to revisit state etc. we can do that; but, I suggest, only after the next review goes out. Frank On May 14, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Ken Laskey wrote: Correction:
Figure 17 Needs and Capabilities already subclasses State. Need to look again at the "changes" relationships because I'm not sure they are correct.
<pastedGraphic.png>
If we go in this direction, we need to bring in this model.
Ken
++++ previous email ++++
This gets back to both Trust and Risk being personal perceptions. The
question as far as modeling is how to include the idea without making
the model overly complicated; i.e. I really don't want to subclass
State as Public State and Private State and have RWE being the Public
State that is shared. I think that is true, I just am not thrilled
about the distraction of such a model unless it serves a wider purpose.
The question is how much of this can just be in the surrounding words
and how much really needs to be in the model.
Need to chew on this more.
Ken
On May 14, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Danny Thornton wrote:
The reason I did not use shared state is because willingness can be
determined based on private state that does not reflect the real
world. A counter example to shared state would be an insane person
whose actions continually have negative consequences because of the
person's inability to measure and process the RWE of their actions
and then incorporate this into their decision making process. Even
a psychologist may not be able to decipher the private state and
decision processes of the insane person. The private state example
could equally apply to non-predictive computing systems or computing
systems that do not predict RWE well.
Danny
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Another diagram
To: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com>
Cc: "Francis McCabe" <frankmccabe@mac.com>, "Danny Thornton" <danny_thornton2@yahoo.com
, "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org" <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 8:39 AM
On May 14, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
I think Danny's point was that the predicted
(expected, intended,
desired) RWE determines Willingness, but we don't yet
have
distinctions for different kinds or aspects of RWE in
the RAF. Ken's
diagrams and Dave's description of the latest
DoDAF/DISA thinking
include that, but we haven't accepted that yet.
The problem with these types:
positive-predicted-expected-intended-desired RWE v.
negative-unintended RWE is that the positive is acted
upon based on
the projected future state while the negative is only
apparent as
something that ought to habe been avoided AFTER actual
RWE happens,
e.g. after state change.
The positive is acted upon on the projected future state
while the negative is projected future state that is grounds
for avoiding action or taking alternate mitigating action.
To use Ken's model of Trust-Risk with Frank's, Risk
would now need to
be an Association Class to match Trust,
Didn't I make both Trust and Risk association classes
between the Trusting and the Trusted?
but the temporal aspects of
Trust and Risk are out of synch, except as past
experience is used in
the assessment phase prior to reaching the
(unincluded) Willingness
Threshold, triggering Willingness as currently
modeled. If we just
say up front that we are not chained to synchronous
context, we can
lose that problem.
1. I agree that a note may be adequate.
2. My comment above would say they really aren't out of
synch at all. This doesn't preclude a possible note on
sequencing.
However, if we use Danny's diagram Ken's model
of Risk would not
need to be changed because it seems to retain Trust as
a simple Class
not an Association Class so Ken's model of Tuest-Risk
would not need
to be changed. However, the question of whether, where
and how to use
Risk remains.
I see Danny's diagram almost as a subset of mine, and I
think the two can converge with a bit more discussion.
Danny introduces State but explicitly not Shared State, but
I didn't quite catch why or the intended distinction.
Given RWE is in terms of Shared State, I feel just saying
State begs for an explicit relationship to tie loose ends
together.
I like Frank's diagram marginally better than Danny's
(as it now
stands even with changing the dependency of
Willingness on temporally
undifferentiated RWE) because I think State needs to
be Shared State
for interaction to proceed.
I understand Duane's comment now too. Let's send in
some nanobots
next time we want to look under a big rock like
Trust.
;-)
Cheers,
Rex
At 10:11 PM -0700 5/13/09, Francis McCabe wrote:
Danny
Your diagram seems to show that RWE determines
willingness. You
surely do not mean that?
Frank
On May 13, 2009, at 9:35 PM, Danny Thornton
wrote:
Making a decision based on a belief that is
contradicted by
evidence means a set of rules exist that are
higher priority than
the attempt to create new rules based on
evidence. In either case
there is a rule base (willingness) for the
decision making process.
In the opposite case, as in the con man, rules
may override
preexisting rules based on evidence, even if
the evidence is false.
Trust does not have to be based on an action
but is based on some
expected real world effect. Ken has
stated this observation a
couple of times. A computing system may
calculate that the
resources required to prevent negative
consequences outweighs the
negative consequences. The negative
consequences may be due to
actions or inaction.
I've attached an updated version of Frank's
diagram with these
views. I specifically did not give State
the name of Shared State
and I specifically did not connect State to
Real World Effect
(Duane's con man example and also the case of
insanity).
Danny
--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>
wrote:
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Another diagram
To: "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org>,
"Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com>
Cc: "Francis McCabe" <frankmccabe@mac.com>,
"soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org"
<soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 2:31 PM
Re: [soa-rm-ra] Another diagram
I agree with Ken (especially the
part about not trusting Bettina to pick
out a good action
movie). I think that "evidence" is
really
"beliefs" or similar. Many people
see
evidence to the contrary but still believe
their original
notions. For example, your see
evidence that
contradicts your deep rooted
beliefs. Most people
still like to cling to their belief
system.
D
On 5/13/09 2:00 PM, "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org>
wrote:
I do not
trust her to go to the video
store and pick out a good action adventure
movie.
--
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems
Chair - OASIS SOA RM Technical Committee
Manager - Adobe LiveCycle ES Developers
List
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Twitter: duanechaos
TV Show: http://www.duanesworldtv.org
Band: http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
<
Trust
.png
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 1063.p7s
( / ) (017418A3)
--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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Follow this link to all your TCs
in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
my_workgroups.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 |