Re: [soa-rm-ra] collected concept definitions per action

[Francis McCabe <fmccabe@gmail.com>]

Some immediate thoughts:

1. In general, we are only interested in measurable things. So, there is no sense in talking about unmeasurable state.

We had a lot of discussions about state in the RM days. We came to the conclusion that state is characterized by facts but is probably not the same as facts. 

2. We have generally avoided cardinality unless needed. Cardinality is not needed for private state.

3. The real world effect should refer to the world, not to what is known about the world.

4. Intent DOES NOT need to be stated. Generally it is NOT stated. Indeed, most people rely on evaluations of intent (much like trust) as opposed to stated intent. We should keep closer to the original definition:

Intent is the internal planning and orienting of an actor to achieve an objective

5. Commitment is not directly connected to intent. e.g., I promise that it will be sunny tomorrow. Should not be unnecessarily connected to shared anything. Original definition:

A commitment is a social fact about the future that a participant is responsible for ensuring is satisfied.

6. The concept of permission is a standard part of the policy ontology. Not inherently connected to social structure. A right is a permission that is connected to a social structure.

7. Achievement should not be part of obligation - it implies that the actor is not currently in the desired state. Similarly for permission.

8. I am not against prohibition, except that it is a form of negative permission/obligation.

9. goals are internal, purposes are external. I do not have a purpose but I do have goals.

10. rights are part of a social structure. Permissions are part of policies.

11. Ditto for obligation and responsibility

On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:

<section 3 collected definitions.docx>