[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] My takeway (while listening in to another telecom)
Rex, Regarding association classes, they are "bidirectional" because -- deeper down -- an association class is a class that is associated with two other classes in a specific manner. See attached ppt. -Jim On 6/24/09 3:24 PM, "Rex Brooks" indited: > Hi Folks, > > I shouldn't say I'm not going to do something when my next task is to > listen into another meeting (and a looooong one) where I don't have > to participate much. So I have attached my takeaway from today's > meeting for the Trust and Risk in Willingness diagram. If EA allows a > bi-directional Association Class, I couldn't find out how to do it, > however, in practice both Trust and Risk should go in both > directions, or you can just think of the actors as swapping > positions. However, in any case, I think we should make their > definitions as close to identical as we can as opposite Association > Classes. > > Now: > > Trust: Trust is an actor's private perception of the commitment > another actor has to a goal together with an identifiable set of real > world effects associated with that goal. > > Risk: Risk an an actor's private perception that another actor's > actions will impede fulfillment of the first actor's objectives. > > At a minimum I think Risk should say that "Risk is an actor's private > perception that another actor's action and other factors will impede > fulfillment of the first actor's objectives. > > What I suggest: Trust is an actor's private perception that another > actor's actions and other factors will aid fulfillment of the first > actor's objectives. > > I added other factors because different external and internal factors > may apply between Trust and Risk and are part of the assessment of > how well another actor's action will effect attaining the Desired > Real World Effect. > > I chose the Risk definition to make them identical just because it > was shorter and more terse and commitment is, IMO just another > factor, a big one, but just one of many. > > So, In light of both Ken's prior effort and Danny's I think we are at > least getting honded down. > > Cheers, > Rex >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]