[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action.
"It can be extremely useful to identify and separate the different overlapping senses of joint action. It allows us to separately describe and process the communicative actions from the command joint actions. This, in turn, reflects the fact that each layer has its own logic and ontology." Interaction doesn't really fit as a replacement for joint action in the above sentence. In the proceess of creating a system thread, the term interaction is not likely to show up as an element within a diagram, however, I can see joint action as an element/stereo type in a diagram that breaks down into more actions/joint actions and potentially has it's own logic/ontology/etc associated with each level of joint action. I think this discussion falls in the area of helping with SOA etiquette. I can make use of joint action when designing software systems. I also think Ken is right that a lot of readers will not appreciate the degree that joint action has been teased apart. The examples could be related to the reader from the perspective of a system engineering design. For the second term "counts as": "In many situations the best predicate that describes the relationship between these different joint actions is the 'counts as' predicate. The utterance action counts as the command to open the door. The command to open the door counts as the request to admit the visitor." While not necessarily intended to be used this way in the context of the discussion, the use of "counts as" could be tied to predictive algorithms which could be tied to the willingness factor. "Counts as" could be used to state that A now will be B later, this could be used in a static design-time context but more interestingly in a dynamic run-time context. Danny -----Original Message----- From: Laskey, Ken [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:29 AM To: Francis McCabe; email@example.com RA Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action. Frank, Two points here: one for a clarification and the other still questioning the necessity of the elaboration. First, if I cut down a tree, is there a joint action? There is certainly a real world effect. I use this as my "action" scenario in order to avoid messages. Message exchange seems to always require joint action -- the speaker and the listener -- for anything to get done. The message exchange is by construction a joint action, and all the other levels of intent you mention often get masked. The concept of an action meant for different purposes is critical for trust because the question comes down to whether the individual intent of the parties will likely lead to acceptable RWEs, even if the intents are somewhat different. This leads me to the second point: what of all this is required to tell the story for the RA? Interaction is made up of joint actions, but when is it not sufficient to talk about interaction? We seem to do quite well in section 4, although it will take a bit of effort to reconstruct what Jeff and I decided when we first had the action to tackle this. As for trust, the initial write-up I did seemed to capture more than some folks felt necessary, and it made no mention of joint action. One of our principles is parsimony. I understand, although I still have a few questions on, your elaboration of joint action. The question is whether this is the most parsimonious way to tell the story. Of more concern, will anyone not part of our discussion understand it? Ken ________________________________________ From: Francis McCabe [firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:33 AM To: email@example.com RA Subject: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action. A joint action is a coordinated set of actions involving the efforts of two or more actors to achieve an effect In any social context joint actions abound: people talking to each other, people buying and selling, people arranging their lives. In addition, joint action is at the heart of interactions within the context of a SOA ecosystem. There is another sense in which joint actions abound: even within a single incident of interaction there are typically several overlapping joint actions. For example, when one person says to another: "it is stuffy in here" there is an immediate sense in which there is a joint action -- a joint communicative action. The intended effect being that the listener believes that the speaker intends him to understand that the speaker believes that the atmosphere is uncomfortable. (The listener may also believe that the atmosphere *is* uncomfortable as a result of the communication.) However, in the right context, there may be another joint action: the apparent declaration may in fact be a command. The intent being that the speaker wishes the listener to understand that the door should be opened. There may be a further layer to this scenario: the speaker might be aware that there is someone who is waiting to be let in. The command to open the door is actually a command to admit the visitor to the room. Fundamentally all three of these senses of joint action are superimposed on top of each other. However, there is a strong sense in which the different joint actions may be quite interchangeable. For example, instead of declaring that the "room is stuffy", the speaker might have simply said "open the door". Or the speaker might have said "please let John in". In each case the effect would have been the same -- modulo the sensitivities of the speaker and listener -- the door being open and the visitor admitted to the room. The relationship between the communicative joint action: the utterance of the declaration and the command joint action is a `uses' relationship. The speaking joint action is used to convey the command joint action; which in turn is used to convey the visitor admittance action. In many situations the best predicate that describes the relationship between these different joint actions is the 'counts as' predicate. The utterance action counts as the command to open the door. The command to open the door counts as the request to admit the visitor. It can be extremely useful to identify and separate the different overlapping senses of joint action. It allows us to separately describe and process the communicative actions from the command joint actions. This, in turn, reflects the fact that each layer has its own logic and ontology. For example, at the utterance level, the issues are to do with the successful understanding of the content of the communication -- did the listener hear and understand the words, did the speaker intend to say them, and so on. At the level of the command to open the door, the issues center on whether there is a predisposition on the part of the listener to obey commands given to him by the speaker. In the context of a SOA ecosystem we can separately capture the logic and mechanics of what is involved in electronic communication -- the sending of messages, the security of the communication and so on; from the logic and mechanics of command -- does the listener believe that the speaker has the appropriate authority to issue the command. As with human communication, electronic interactions are similarly interchangeable: the commitment to purchase a book requires some form of communication between buyer and seller; but the purchase action itself is unchanged by the use of email or an HTTP post of an XML document. In summary, the concept of joint action allows us to honor the fact that both parties in an interaction are required for there to be an actual effect; it allows us to separate out the different levels of the interaction into appropriate semantic layers; and it allows us to recombine those layers in potentially different ways whilst still achieving the intended real world effects of action in a SOA ecosystem. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php