Re: [soa-rm-ra] propositions, goals etc. etc.

[Francis McCabe <fmccabe@gmail.com>]

I do not think that a white paper is appropriate here. 




On Sep 13, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:

> Frank,
> 
> Some interesting material but it is difficult to parse unless the reader
> really puts in the effort.  In my section 3 comments, I suggested the
> previous presentation of this material be moved to an accompanying white
> paper where you could expand further as you've started to do here.  Can we
> build a more straightforward (in terms of application to SOA) model for the
> RAF section 3?  The first question is what is the list of concepts that need
> to be included in the model, then we can work the "simpler" relationships.
> 
> 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: Francis McCabe [mailto:fmccabe@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 2:15 AM
> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA
> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] propositions, goals etc. etc.
> 
> I have, as an experiment to satisfy certain persons' requirements, put
> together a section on meaning. It is short, but encompasses both the concept
> of proposition and the meaning that the proposition has. Example meanings
> include facts, goals, objectives, policies. These are all instances of the
> concept of stance.
> 
> I think that it may be useful to have a section like this. But it
> potentially does a lot of damage to other sections - by requiring for
> example, to move the definition of policy out of where it is naturally
> defined into this omnibus section. So, one possible resolution is to put
> some examples of stance in here, but leave others (like goal, policy and
> objective) to their more natural location.
> 
> 
>