Attached is a variation of your diagram done in MagicDraw but keeping a few extra pieces of the original. I also created a diagram connecting action and willingness. Given Jeff's recent comment, this has a variant for action and a variant for joint action.
As for your definitions of trust and risk below, let me suggest:
Trust is an actor's private perception that another actor's actions and other factors will result in desired or neutral real world effects.
Risk is an actor's private perception that another actor's actions and other factors will result in undesirable real world effects.
I would like to keep it in terms of RWE because that is eventually what is measurable and how things can be assessed.
For risk, the undesirable effects may not impede the goal for my wanting to interact but I may nonetheless consider the effects undesirable and want to avoid them. For example, I purchase coffee beans because my goal is to be able to make coffee tomorrow morning but I may insist on a seller of fair trade coffee because I don't want the undesirable effects of exploiting the growers. Now we could say that I have multiple goals that I am trying to accommodate at the same time, but rather than enumerate secondary goals I think it's simpler just to say I don't want bad things to happen.
On Jun 24, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Rex Brooks wrote:
Hi again Folks,
Sorry you couldn't read the diagram I attached the first time. I
didn't realise that until got back into my home office a few minutes
ago. So none of what I said below could make much sense. The first
time I saved in EA it did something screwy. I doubt my penchant for
eliminating whitespace in filenames had anything to do with, but I
left the diagram name alone this time and it worked.
So now you can see what I came away with from today'smeeting.
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
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
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.
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670<Trust and Risk in Willingness.jpg><ATT00001.txt>
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508