[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Fwd: DM2 Soa Modeling - SoaML Perspective workingmeeting
Agreed, first things first. However, I think we could use the venerable furniture moving situation with participants A and B, and for the sake of setting it into a context, let's say A takes the single action of: A sends an email to B: Hi B, Can you help me move this table Saturday? Results: Wild Card: the email disappears with no bounce notice. It's possible but doesn't help us, so I propose we ignore it for the sake of getting to the atomic level of granularity. B can miss or ignore email, and no Joint Communicative Action occurs. (Let's dismiss the philosophical question about whether a negative joint action occurred because we can't establish a priori whether B notices the email or not, and if B does and ignores it, no one else knows either, and it doesn't matter.) B can answer: Hi A, Sure, and a Joint Communicative Action occurs whether the table ever gets moved or not. B can answer: Hi A, I'm busy Saturday, but I could do it Sunday. How does that work for you? and a Joint Communicative Action occurs whether the table ever gets moved or not. B can answer: Hi A. No, and a Communicative Joint Action occurs even if the outcome does not lead to a Joint (Physical) Action resulting in the intended Real Word Effect. In any event, before the Joint (Physical) Action can occur, some Communicative Joint Action needs to take place and I think this is the level of atomic granularity I referred to previously. Cheers, Rex Ken Laskey wrote: > I spent a fair amount of time talking with Cory about what was joint > action we cared about vs. single action. Was it always joint action? > Was single action just a degenerate or failed case, e.g. I sent a > message to you but you didn't receive it (by failure or due to > refusal). Cory also feels that the Joint Action concept provides > something that would be missing otherwise but our discussion didn't > clearly identify what that is. > > Anyway, first PR2 and then we come up with and stick to a plan for > running this to ground. > > Ken > > On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Thornton, Danny R (IS) wrote: > >> No drowning that cat now! It's out of the bag and running free. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:48 PM >> *To:* soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org >> <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> RA >> *Subject:* [soa-rm-ra] Fwd: DM2 Soa Modeling - SoaML Perspective >> working meeting >> >> I attended a meeting on the DoDAF metamodel (DM2) and Cory Casanave >> presented this brief showing soaML modeling. Some of the latter >> stuff still in the discussion phase has to do with this weird thing >> called Joint Action. Take a look and consider how it relates to the >> RA concept. >> >> Ken >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]