Re: [soa-rm-ra] definitions of Objective, Intent and Commitment

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I got sidetracked by the real world, in the form of a sick friend, when 
attempting to reply to this earlier, so please excuse the tardiness. 
Comments inline.

Ken Laskey wrote:
>
> I’ve read through section 3 and will put together comments, but a 
> topic of conversation during the last call was the definition of 
> Objective. As I understand the last proposed wording, it is
>
> An objective is a measureable real world effect that an actor uses an 
> action to achieve.
>
> 1. Real world effect is defined as “a measureable change” so adding 
> the word measureable is redundant.
>
> 2. If a consumer initiates a service interaction so the provider will 
> engage in actions that result in the objective, there is a degree of 
> indirection the definition seems to miss.
>
Not sure how deeply we want to plumb this indirection. As long as the 
definition buys us enough cover to apply to the series or layers of 
interactions necessary to establish Willingness to allow Trust and 
proceed with the main service being arranged, I'm happy. Beyond that be 
dragons, alligators and other nasties.
>
> I suggest
>
> An objective is a real world effect that results through the intended 
> actions of one or more actors.
>
I'd say "results from" rather than "results through" but that's just a 
personal preference. There's something about "through" that makes me see 
an objective as a Pipe through which the Goal is transmitted and I don't 
think that's what we are modeling. That said, I don't care enough to object.

I'd definitely take "intended" out of that. One intends to act, but I'm 
not sure we need to qualify the action as the intended action. I think 
that's definitional or tautological. We do need to deal with the 
consequences of unintended actions as bad results that create a bad 
reputation, but I don't think we need to deal with it in the definition. 
It should be taken for granted that an action is intended unless the 
actor says it wasn't.
>
> Couple follow up thoughts.
>
> - I wouldn’t have trouble with the original definition that says 
> “wishes”. There are words we can just use in their usual English 
> language context and, short of Aladdin and the genie in the movie, I 
> think the reader will have no problem with saying the actor desires 
> the objective.
>
At the risk of being seen as wishy-washy I don't think it matters, but 
desires is just as good as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it 
implies the wanton lustfulness necessary to warrant a scarlet letter.
>
> - The definition of Intent that follows the definition of Objective 
> uses commitment in a slightly different context than the definition in 
> section 3.1.3. A previous definition was
>
> Intent is a willingness by a member of a social structure to perform 
> actions to achieve a stated goal.
>
Granted that willingness (small "w") is not equivalent to "commitment" 
in the current definition. I prefer commitment because it implies a 
stronger dedication to the goal or objective. I also prefer "actor". Why 
constrain the "actor" to a member of a social structure? Won't we have a 
problem opening up the possibility of asking actors to identify which 
social structure they are representing at any given point in time? I 
prefer leaving that door closed.
>
> And then
>
> A commitment is a stated intent regarding the status of a shared state 
> in the future.
>
Sorry, this doesn't work for me. Neither does the last one. My Suggestion:

A commitment is a promise to act in furtherance of a future shared state.

Commitment goes beyond intent, or even stated intent, which can possibly 
be no more than the goal or objective unless it appends some other value 
about how the goal or commitment will be achieved. Commitment entails 
obligation. Intent stops short of that.
>
> I think we’ll need to be careful when we use “goal” and when we use 
> “objective” – there is some inconsistency in the text, but I’d 
> otherwise put these forward for consideration
>
Agreed.

Cheers,
Rex
>
> .
>
> Ken
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr. Kenneth 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