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] RE: Before we get too far down this road...

The intent of the last sentence is to capture the situation where a 'consumer' is asking a bank to 'transfer money'. The bank may fully 'understand' what is going on, and continue to interact with the consumer; but still (for its own reasons) refuse to transfer the money.

There is no implied privateness about the actions involved. They could be private, but just as easily be public.
On Jun 24, 2009, at 9:11 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:


Copying the Willingness definition again.

Associated with all service interactions is intent – it is an intentional act to initiate and to participate in a service interaction. For example, if a service consumer discovers a service via its description in a registry, and the consumer initiates an interaction, if the service provider does not cooperate then there can be no interaction. In some circumstances it is precisely the correct behavior for a service to fail to respond – for example, it is the classic defense against certain denial-of-service attacks. The extent of a service participant’s willingness to engage in service interactions may be the subject of policies. Those policies may be documented in the service description. Willingness on the part of service providers and consumers to interact is not the same as a willingness to perform requested actions. A service provider that rejects all attempts to cause it to perform some action may still be fully willing and engaged in interacting with the consumer.”
Most of the definition applies to interaction but you are correct that the end talks to an action on the part of one participant.  In particular, it associates willingness with the private action of a participant, but I would have to give some thought as to whether I'd want to put on that restriction.  In any case, it is relating to a singular action.


On Jun 24, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Estefan, Jeff A wrote:

Actually, there are two types of Willingness articulated in that passage from the RM.  One associated with interaction (which is the primary focus) but also one associated with action.
And this is why I hate the concept of Joint Action introduced in the RA.  It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to explain this concept to anybody.  Can’t even understand it myself and we cannot go out there and hand hold everybody who reads the RA to explain what the heck we mean by Joint Action.  In my opinion, there’s interaction and action and that’s what we should concentrate on.  Period.  Hate it when we deviate from the core concepts of the RM.  I think you’d agree.
 - Jeff

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]