[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] willingness in joint action
Realization is not, imo, the correct dependency in this case. On Jun 25, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Rex Brooks wrote: > Thanks James, > > My question to James is: do you have a recommended name? For the pre- > specified names, I reviewed the UML 2.2 superstructure spec for > classes and it seems to me that realization is the more accurate. > > The description for realization is > > "Realization is a specialized abstraction relationship between two > sets of model elements, one representing a specification (the > supplier) and the other represents an implementation of the latter > (the client). ...." > > My initial thought was that it was more accurate because the action > is the implementation of willingness or ability to act (and it is > also the implementation of "intent" to act toward the fulfillment of > some desired real world effect--goal). Unfortunately a closer > reading of the description leads to a tautology since Action is the > latter (client) class, making Action an implementation of Action. > So, I appeal to James or Jeff to enlighten me here. > > However, if I were to choose a term on my own as an extension of > Dependency for explanatory purposes, whether UML Tools can operate > on it or not, I would use <<enable>>. Of course, for my purposes, I > want the tools to be able to use this, but that should not stand in > the way of completing the explanatory purpose of this specification. > > My last question is: if realization is more accurate, should we > then, use a Realization Dependency (a dashed line ending in a > triangle)? Willingness and Ability Dependency connectors could be > joined and share the triangle to make clear that both must be > satisfied. > > Cheers, > Rex > > At 9:41 AM -0400 6/25/09, James Odell wrote: >> Dependencies typically have names. A choice of names are pre- >> specified by >> UML (e.g., <<instantiate>>, <<realization>>). However, you may >> extend this >> set of names, but they will not be understood by conventional UML >> tools. >> >> -Jim >> >> >> On 6/24/09 8:29 PM, "Francis McCabe" indited: >> >>> I dont think that dependencies are usually named. What would you >>> suggest for the names? >>> On Jun 24, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Rex Brooks wrote: >>> >>>> Works better for me. Will the association between Willingness and >>>> Actor and between Ability and Actor be named? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Rex >>>> >>>> At 4:33 PM -0700 6/24/09, Francis McCabe wrote: >>>>> I have a new diagram... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Joint Actions 4.png (PNGf/«IC») >>>>> (01789292) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This focuses on the fact that an actor has ability (or not) and >>>>> willingness (or not) and that joint action depend on both. >>>>> I redrew the named association between joint actions and actions >>>>> as >>>>> a regular aggregation. >>>>> >>>>> Frank >>>>> On Jun 24, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Rex Brooks wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The dependency of Joint (or any kind of) Action on Willingness is >>>>>> not clear in the diagram. That's why I modeled it as a Dependency >>>>>> relationship of Willingness-Determination (as the supplier) and >>>>>> Joint (or any kind of) Action (as the client) and not an >>>>>> Association Class. However, as an Association Class it can be >>>>>> applied to the relationship between an actor and any kind of >>>>>> action. I like that. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is a way to make the Association Class show dependency, >>>>>> I'd be happier. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Rex >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sooo, while I agree that willingness is a kind of association >>>>>>> class, I am uncomfortable with this diagram: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Joint Actions 3.png >>>>>>> (PNGf/«IC») (01788EEC) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for two reasons: Willingness is a noun and associations are >>>>>>> predicates, and there are other important associations that >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> be drawn here, such as ability, authority, all kinds of stuff. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frank >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 1092.p7s ( / ) >>>>>>> (01788EED) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Rex Brooks >>>>>> President, CEO >>>>>> Starbourne Communications Design >>>>>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >> >>>> Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>>>> Tel: 510-898-0670 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 1094.p7s ( / ) >>>>> (01789293) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]