[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 (whilelistening in to another telecom)
likewise inline: At 6:42 PM -0400 6/26/09, Ken Laskey wrote: >see inline > >On Jun 26, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Estefan, Jeff A wrote: > >>Folks, >> >>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. >> > >I understand your point but many assessments of risk are done as >informally as assessments of trust. I would suggest the definition >in terms of perception, i.e. > >Risk is an actor's private perception that another actor's actions >and other factors will result in undesirable real world effects. > >but having text following the definition covering your points of >risk often subject to formal analysis to quantify level of risk. In >reality, the definition of a risk threshold is often contentious and >a perception of when who feels the risk is low enough, e.g. Yucca >Mountain. But I am open to further wordsmithing. > >> >>Ken, what do you mean by "and other factors" in your recent >>proposed definition of both concepts? >> > >See Rex's email to which I replied. He introduced the "and other >factors" and explained his rationale. > >>I think we need something more solid or at least provide examples; >>otherwise, we should just drop those words. >> > >I would be willing to drop it. Rex? Sure. I would prefer to have, but I can live without it. >> >>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. >> > >That's exactly it -- I reprieved the RWE connection, leading to > >Trust is an actor's private perception that another actor's actions >and other factors will result in desired or neutral real world >effects.. > >The other actor's goals are really not the issue but rather the RWE >that we want to see. For example, in Virginia, a common goal is to >have children show they are educated in history. The official RWE >desired is for them to pass a test asking them names and dates. I >find that totally inadequate as a desired RWE and thus my trust in >the state's ability to educate my children in history is far less >than would be reflected in our shared goals. > >> >>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 >>model. >> > >I believe there is a linear progression (with side discussions on >UML modeling) in the interchange between Rex and me. A branch was >Frank's proposal (split in Evidence) and some comments of preference >for the other one (single Evidence). > >> >> - J >> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ken Laskey >MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >McLean VA 22102-7508 Cheers, Rex -- 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]