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


As far as intent is concerned; there may have been a misunderstanding.

It has always been my understanding that "the application of intent" always referred to some internal 'thing' of the actor; not to any declared external 'thing'. If you require externality here, then the definition of action is useless because it presupposes the 'thing' it is defining. Action is inherently an internally originated 'thing'.

If you disagree with this basic view of action, then we have a much bigger issue IMO.

I was not doing propositional logic; in fact I was not doing logic. But there are some principles of logic that apply to ANY systematic description. In English, proposition and assertion are used in an extremely fuzzy and interchangeable manner. However, there was a requirement for something that obeyed the equation:

Thought = Sentence + Purpose

There are many example of this equation: goal = sentence + desire, policy = sentence + enforcement, description = sentence + 'this is so', fact = sentence + belief, etc. etc.

This is basic too; and if you disagree with THIS then we have yet another huge issue. (I do not intend Purpose here to be confused with purpose as we currently define it.) I used the term stance because that came from Denning (intensional stance) and because purpose would have been inaccurate and confusing.

In general, I think that a lot of what we are doing is not in most people's vocabulary. That is because to actually get to the heart of the ecosystem you have to dig somewhat deeper than exchanging messages. If you don't dig deeper, then you condemn SOA to be a rerun of CORBA.






On Nov 14, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

See [KJL] below
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sunday, November 14, 2010 5:15 PM
To: Laskey, Ken
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
 
REsponses inline
On Nov 14, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:


Frank,
 
Some of your definitions are inconsistent with common use of the term.
 
-          Intent
o   Def: stated objective by participant; commitment of an actor
o   It has nothing to do with “internal planning and orienting” which indeed may be needed to carry out intent but these are not intent
 
Whatever the actual word, the intent behind the term intent (sic) is to denote the internal orienting associated with action. The public version of intent may be important; but was not intended (sic) here.
My challenge to you then is to find the right word,
[KJL] When did internal orienting become YOUR intent?  It was never part of previous discussion and is certainly not what was discussed for the model in Figure 12.

-          Proposition
o   Def: offer of terms; anything stated or affirmed for discussion
o   “denoting some property” could be part of a proposition but it is certainly a small subset and most propositions in the real world are presented in any number of ways, not just per your definition of “written expression”
 
Proposition is a well-known term in logic. There is even a logic called propositional logic. I did not invent the word. 
[KJL] We should not be introducing propositional logic.  Also, there is nothing in the text that indicates we are suddenly using technical terms from another discipline.
-          Stance
o   Def: mental of emotional position adopted; intellectual or emotional attitude
o   “relationship that an actor has to a proposition” says nothing
 
The alternate terms for stance do not seem any better to me: modality, performative, perlocutionary force, pragmatics. I am not particularly concerned about the word; only the concept behind it.
[KJL] The definition isn’t clear enough to suggest an alternative.  Again, you’re digging yourself a hole you don’t really need to be in.

 
When you have definitions like these (and there are other definitions that stretch the common usage), the only way to try to parse another definition that uses these terms is to substitute them in.  Furthermore, while the readability may not be perfect, I have never before seen it challenged to substitute definitions this way in order to check whether one is saying what they intended.
 
There are many many instances in computer science where we have to take a generally used word and 'specialize it'. E.g. process, resource, actor, verb, consistency, logic, etc. etc.
[KJL]whenever you do that you are making things more difficult for your audience.  This may be justified if you are creating a new discipline and the terminology is meant for people who are willing to devote themselves to studying that discipline, but not to something that is meant for an audience with little patience and competing interests who tell that audience that it’s all really straightforward if they buy whatever the vendor is selling.
 
I think that the substituting in challenge is an interesting consistency check. But I doubt that even in regular english you would get a readable sentence if you substitute dictionary definitions for the words used in a sentence.
 
Here is a simple example:
 
The cat sat on the mat.
 
 
The [small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractile claws] [adopt or be in a position in which one's weight is supported by one's buttocks rather than one's feet and one's back is upright] on the [piece of protective material placed on a floor]
[KJL] The interesting thing is this paints the current picture with very little effort on the part of the reader.  The same exercise for purpose did not.


It is not even correct in this case because cats do not sit on their buttocks.


 
Sorry, Frank, but this is what I have been complaining about for a long time.
 
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: Sunday, November 14, 2010 3:32 PM
To: Laskey, Ken
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
 
Come on. It is not a fair test of readability to replace definitions with definiens.
On Nov 14, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:



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] 
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 1:47 AM
To: Laskey, Ken
Cc: rexb@starbourne.com; rex.brooks@ncoic.org; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] revised diagram
 
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] 
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 6:35 PM
To: Laskey, Ken
Cc: rexb@starbourne.com; rex.brooks@ncoic.org; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
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]