[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Resend with readable jpg: My takeway (whilelistening in to another telecom)
Got tired, and forgot to hit reply-all, so I'm forwarding this to the group. Cheers, Rex >Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:05:21 -0700 >To: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> >From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> >Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Resend with readable jpg: My takeway (while >listening in to another telecom) >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Hi Ken, > >I didn't get this till just now and I've already turned off the >computer I use for Enterprise Architect, and being a morning person, >I will respond in the am. I'm happy with your definition refinements. > >However, the way your diagram reads it looks like the Association >Classes Trust and Risk are also attempting to have other >associations, and I don't know whether that's kosher. We'll have to >check. > >The other ones look good. > >In any event, I'm too pooped to do more now. > > >Cheers, >Rex > >>Rex, >> >>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. >> >>Ken >> >> >> >>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. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Rex >>> >>> >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Rex Brooks >>>President, CEO >>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>Tel: 510-898-0670<Trust and Risk in Willingness.jpg><ATT00001.txt> >> >> >> >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Ken Laskey >>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>McLean VA 22102-7508 >> >> >>Rex, >> >>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. >> >>Ken >> >> >> >>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. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Rex >>> >>> >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Rex Brooks >>>President, CEO >>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>Tel: 510-898-0670<Trust and Risk in Willingness.jpg><ATT00001.txt> >>> >> >> >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Ken Laskey >>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>McLean VA 22102-7508 > > >-- > >Rex Brooks >President, CEO >Starbourne Communications Design >GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >Berkeley, CA 94702 >Tel: 510-898-0670 -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]