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 (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:
>>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 
>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 
>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

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]