Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram

[Francis McCabe <fmccabe@gmail.com>]

1. The diagram was not in response to the issues you refer to.

2. The pairs of concepts:

> - purpose vs. goal
> - permission vs. right
> - obligation vs. responsibility
> - promise vs. commitment

are not redundant. There have been some reformulations of definitions in order to clarify them. They also deserve individual responses:

> - purpose vs. goal


purpose is external, goal is internal

As in "the purpose of this brick is to hold up the bridge" and "the goal of the bridge authority is to ensure free flow of traffic".

> - permission vs. right

There are multiple issues here. The terms come from different ontologies: permission comes from an ontology focused on policies, right comes from an ontology focused on social structures (specifically roles). 

A pop distinction would be that right is a permission that is part of a role; i.e., a permission that is 'sanctioned' by a social structure.

In example: "You have the right the remain silent ... " refers to a permission originating from a social structure.
In contrast, "I give you permission to open the envelope"

> - obligation vs. responsibility

This too is similar to permissions and rights. In this case there is actually a third concept to consider: accountability. 

"You are responsible for ensuring free flow of traffic"

"You are obliged to accept this summons"

> - promise vs. commitment

A promise is characterized as a fact about the future; but does not imply personal obligation/responsibility:

"I promise it will rain tomorrow"

compared with 

"I commit to ensuring rain tomorrow"


There is a substantial issue about where these definitions should be located. On reflection, I do not think it is a good idea to have them them all in one place - for reasons that we discussed: to do so would destroy overall presentation.



On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:22 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:

> It appears we've lost the focus of what was originally identified as the
> problem and what was asked for in the way of a solution.  Referring to the
> 7/28 line numbers:
> 
> Lines 655-657: definitions of Purpose, Goals, Objectives, Intent are
> scattered throughout this section.  It isn't clear that it is necessary to
> explicitly discriminate between all of these, but it would be easier to
> understand the differences if they were all defined in one place and then
> used consistently.  A unifying model would also be useful.
> 
> Lines 803ff: definitions of Right, Authority, Commitment, Obligation,
> Permission, (do we need Prohibition?) are scattered throughout this section.
> It isn't clear that it is necessary to explicitly discriminate between all
> of these, but it would be easier to understand the differences if they were
> all defined in one place and then used consistently.  A unifying model would
> also be useful, especially to illustrate lines 817-820.
> 
> This lead to my collecting definitions and trying to identify
> inconsistencies and overlaps.  During that exercise, I specifically
> identified pairs of concepts that appeared redundant
> - purpose vs. goal
> - permission vs. right
> - obligation vs. responsibility
> - promise vs. commitment
> 
> When reading the 11/9 text, many things were not changed and those that were
> didn't strike me as adding clarity.  In addition, on reading the text, I
> don't believe we are really clear in our use of commitment vs. obligation.
> 
> Why is it so hard to create a consistent model that has Purpose, Goals,
> Objectives, Intent?  Why is it so hard to create a consistent model that has
> Right, Authority, Commitment, Obligation, Permission?
> 
> 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: Danny Thornton [mailto:danny_thornton2@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 1:48 AM
> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA; Francis McCabe
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
> 
> Changing thought to semantics brings Joint Action more into focus.
> 
> --- On Thu, 11/11/10, Francis McCabe <fmccabe@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Francis McCabe <fmccabe@gmail.com>
>> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
>> To: "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA" <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 12:34 PM
>> Changed thought to semantics (it
>> sounds more formal anyway) and dropped the 'white boxes'
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
>> OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs
>> in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>