[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
Correct is insufficient when it is also indecipherable. 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] In fact, although I would not recommend the style of the definition of purpose; it is actually correct! On Nov 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ken Laskey wrote: Frank, I do not think we have it nailed down. If you take your definition of Purpose and substitute in the definitions for Proposition, Stance, and Goal you get A purpose is a an expression, normally in a language that has a well-defined written form, that denotes some property of a domain ascribed to a thing or an action relating it to an expression, normally in a language that has a well-defined written form, that denotes some property of a domain associated with a particular relationship that an actor (or group of actors) has to an expression, normally in a language that has a well-defined written form, that denotes some property of a domain about the state that an actor is seeking to establish or maintain. Okay, let’s say we try to simplify this. I end up with A purpose is a an expression that denotes some property relating it to an expression that denotes some property associated with a particular relationship that an actor (or group of actors) has that denotes some property of a domain about the state that an actor is seeking to establish or maintain. Who of our expected audience would find this a reasonable definition of purpose? I suggest we go back to the 7/28 wording and try to straighten out those. And, I still want to see a UML model. If the definitions do not easily support such a model, we have a problem. 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] I have a hard time with the assertions:
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] 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. 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] 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. 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. -----Original Message----- 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]