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] Resend with readable jpg: My takeway (while listening in to another telecom)

Hi Jeff,

I'm responsible for Ken's use of "and other factors." It was carried 
over by his adaptation of my proposed language change. I added it to 
include in a generic way to account for factors that affect Trust and 
Risk but which are not necessarily included in an individual's 
perception, exactly the kind of evidence you cite from the realm of 
risk management or operations research.

I wanted nearly identical language for Trust and Risk from Ken's 
earlier diagrams which I adapted in my iteration, because I see them 
as symmetrical Association Classes for which a single class of 
Evidence   can be used. That broad class of Evidence can be 
subclassed as showing outcomes that lead to desired, neutral or 
undesired real world outcomes. I'm trying to get this issue down to 
its simplest, abstract components.

I agree we don't necessarily need to either change the definition or 
open the door for more finely grained subclasses of Evidence.

This is also part of my reason for wanting to add Willingness Factors 
as a class to allow Dave and I to have the foundation we need for 
EDXL DE (Emergency Data Exchange Language Distribution Element) used 
for policy-based information sharing as well as security.


At 2:14 PM -0700 6/26/09, Estefan, Jeff A wrote:
>Certainly agree that Trust is perception, but I do feel comfortable 
>with couching Risk is as perception since Risk is exposure (rather 
>than perception) to something undesirable happening.  That level of 
>exposure (i.e., risk exposure) requires analysis.  And we probably 
>don't need to go this far in the RA, but it is typically measured in 
>terms of likelihood and consequence.
>Ken, what do you mean by "and other factors" in your recent proposed 
>definition of both concepts?  I think we need something more solid 
>or at least provide examples; otherwise, we should just drop those 
>Finally, what was wrong with the Trust definition in the latest RA 
>draft that is tied to RWE?  "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." 
>Perhaps we need a reprieve on RWE from the RM just like we did with 
>Willingness.  Recall we said RWE (or set/series of effects) is the 
>result of an interaction and an interaction is "an act" as opposed 
>to "an object."  We also said the RWE are couched in terms of 
>changes to shared state.
>Just trying to get some grounding here.  Seeing so many different 
>proposals on how to model Trust these days, it's getting quite 
>confusing while fully recognizing it's a very difficult concept to 
>  - J

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]