Re: [soa-rm-ra] Need Clarification on Consensus for Items Returnedto Document

[Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>]

Ahh!

My bad, Illocutionary Force was present in the 7-28-2010 document, but 
"Counts as" and "Stance" were not. At least I couldn't find them. The 
details of Speech Act theory are a burden to represent for those of us 
who will be actively promoting this document. Joint Action is difficult 
enough already and going beyond that is just going to lose our audience. 
Plain language equivalents for the concepts may be reasonable. I'll have 
to give it more thought as I go through the Consistency exercise.

However, I am going to formally request now that Illocutionary and 
Perlocutionary force and acts be removed from the document in favor of 
some very plain and to-the-point language to take their place if the 
group overall thinks the concepts themselves need to be in the document. 
I think a "decision procedure" as explained in section 3.2.5.1 needs to 
be discussed as to how deeply we specify it. However I will bring that 
up in the context of consistency.

While I concur that, advisedly, that a decision procedure is necessary, 
it will be present whether explicit or not and how deeply we require it 
is something that needs careful consideration. SoaML and TOG SOA 
Ontology both take their own favorite concepts and shoot themselves in 
their collective foot with it. Let's don't follow suit.

Cheers,
Rex

On 11/14/10 9:54 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> Rex,
>
> The terms you mention were never excised.  See section 3.2.5.1, especially
> line 1524.  My latter issues from 9/22 (updated 11/11) ask for this and
> similar passages to be deleted.
>
> To your list of terms that were supposed to disappear, please add service
> action.
>
> 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: Rex Brooks [mailto:rex.brooks@ncoic.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:38 AM
> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA
> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Need Clarification on Consensus for Items Returned to
> Document
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As I began my review of Section 3 for consistency wrt purpose, goals,
> objectives and intent as well as right, authority, commitment,
> obligation and permission, which I have not had a chance to do with any
> of the snapshots since 7-28-2010, I thought I would only be checking
> those terms and concepts. That was wrong. Terms and concepts have been
> re-added, so I need to get a read on the consensus for these returns.
>
> I need committee members other than Frank to confirm agreement to the
> re-addition of the following terms and concepts that I thought had been
> removed for good:
>
> "Counts as"
> "Illocutionary" (and the apparent adoption of the concepts of Speech Act
> Theory: Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts and Force)
> "stance" in relation to Assertion and Proposition.
>
> I also now have all sorts of major and minor disagreements and quibbles
> respectively, but I thought these dealbreakers had better be my first
> priority. In my opinion these are inappropriate, terms and concepts that
> I thought had safely been laid to rest.
>
> Before I had to take several weeks off to work on the Emergency Data
> Exchange Language Situation Reporting specification for which I am an
> editor, the main editor in terms of pulling the first complete draft
> together from 16+ months, these terms were absent from the document. We
> were working through all issues except Ken's remaining issues with
> Section 3 and we were still referencing 7-28-2010 as we finished up the
> issues lodged against PR02, even though there were a couple of snapshots
> produced which I did not have time to review then.
>
> So my question is: was there explicit consensus for returning these
> concepts to the document while I was absent? If not, you should all go
> into the document and rediscover that these have returned during the
> reformulation of Section 3. I thought that only a small amount of text
> needed to be added to smooth the flow of the reordering of the sections
> that we did agree on. That's why I felt free to concentrate on other work.
>
> This is important because if these terms and concepts were returned
> without explicit consensus, we need to remove them immediately AND we
> need to revisit the discussion of guillotine dates. I will be road kill
> for eliminating these unless there was EXPLICIT consensus. I won't
> accept implicit consensus.
>
> The reason why I appeared to favor avoiding more discussion over items
> we had adjudicated previously was because I assumed that other than
> reordering, the document was largely the same as the last version I had
> agreed to, the 7-28-2010 version with only minor additions to smooth the
> flow of reordering.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>