OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram


I have a hard time with the assertions:

> 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?

Because this assumes that we don't currently have this.

There may be minor tweaking; esp. with the second. But I believe that the first is nailed to the door.

On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

Rex,
 
I regret having ever used the term unified model because I didn’t expect we’d come up with the consistent model of everything.  What I had in mind was a more limited collection of concepts that were obviously related, and I felt that among such a set we should demonstrate consistency, at least internally.
 
So I’m sticking to this set of questions:
> 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?
 
I want to see these models.
 
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
 
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:04 PM
To: Laskey, Ken
Cc: 'Francis McCabe'; rex.brooks@ncoic.org; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
 
Ken's right, per his earlier message. I was reacting to the later responses which seemed to want a prescriptive diagram. I was not attempting to find a model that fulfills Ken's request. I'm not sure that an acceptable unified model is necessarily possible-- not where we all agree on a given set of definitions. We can't order the world by fiat and I don't see a unified model emerging in an obviously self-evident way, at least not now. It may eventually emerge, but not right now. So I'm for getting the best model we can, and accepting that we may not hit every mark. 

Let me be very clear here, with what I think is likely to emerge, I can work with it and move forward. I would argue that we not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Of course, if we can come up with a better model than we have under the conditions we have agreed to, I'll be happier, but probably not by much.

Cheers,
Rex

On 11/12/10 9:37 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
We are distracting ourselves with minutiae.  The question of a “unifying model” came up with respect to the clarity of specific definitions.  Who had a question that required a descriptive, introductory device, and if we are introducing what is already there,  why aren’t the things represented just the main headings of this view?
 
Ken
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
 
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fmccabe@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 12:07 PM
To: rex.brooks@ncoic.org
Cc: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
 
Rex is right. It is a map, not a definition.
On Nov 12, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:



I think most of you are missing the point. This is a descriptive, introductory device not a structural analysis and is, I believe, not intended to be in any sense prescriptive. We just want to get the reader's feet wet with some basic concepts that are important throughout the whole of the rest of the Section as well as the Ecosystem. 

Of course, Frank may say that i'm completely off base.

Cheers,
Rex

On 11/12/10 1:58 AM, mpoulin@usa.com wrote:
Maybe I do not get something, but interactions (lines) between Actor and Action, as well as between Actor and Real Wold and Action and Real World  appear rather strange to me because they bypass Semantics. I am not saying that all mentioned participants always share the same semantics but each of them certainly has its own (at least).
 

I would put Semantics into the center of the diagram, connected all others to it and removed direct peripheral lines between them.

- Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe <fmccabe@gmail.com>
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 8:34 pm
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram

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 
 


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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]