RE: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action.

["Thornton, Danny R (IS)" <Danny.Thornton@ngc.com>]

"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:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:29 AM
To: Francis McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org 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 [fmccabe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:33 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org 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