Re: [soa-rm-ra] Section 3.1 Rewrite

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Ken,

I look at it over the weekend.

Cheers,
Rex

Laskey, Ken wrote:
> Rex,
>
> Thanks for the quick turnaround on this.  It is much more to the point and more functional in motivating the reader in what to expect in the subsections.  The attached includes some wordsmithing but I don't believe anything substantive and nothing that I see as critical.
>
> Ken
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Kenneth Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:14 PM
> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA
> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Section 3.1 Rewrite
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is my first shot at rewriting Section 3.1. I have one main 
> consideration that I wasn't sure about. Does Section 3.1 refer only to 
> Subsections in 3.1, or does it also refer to Sections 3.2, 3.3, etc? I 
> dealt only with issues in Section 3.1-3.1.4.1.
>
> I deleted the example in the 3.1 because I thought it muddied rather 
> than clarified issues when what is needed is to set the stage for the 
> discussion of Actors, Action, Joint Action and Communication as Joint 
> Action. It tended to get the reader engaged with explanatory details 
> immediately and for me that was a distracting rather than clarifying.
>
> However, in rereading the whole section, I felt strongly that the 
> explanation of Service Action as a specific kind of Action and the 
> Counts-As logical equivalence needs an example that we all agree shows 
> these critical elements clearly.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
>   

-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670