Michael,
To your third point, are you referring to the 28 July definitions or the reduced RAF-specific definitions in the 17 Jan draft? If you are referring to the 28 July set, your third point is what drove the reduction to 17 Jan. If you still believe 17 Jan has unnecessary terms, you should identify those terms you believe we can do without.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
Hi Peter,
1) I've found only the columns where you specify the line number that refers to the definition in different versions and its occurrences in different places of the document but not "A new column in those sheets with definitions, that indicates the other concepts referred to in the term definition" - it is not obvious that the referred lines belong to other concepts. I would prefer, if you do not mind, having references directly to other definitions in addition to other points in the text
2) I've found it is really difficult to deal with composite terms like 'Peer Social Structure' because there are too many potential dependencies separately for 'peer' and 'social structure' that may belong to totally different contexts. For example, reference to the line 2717 leads to 'peer' but 'social structure' is not even mentioned
3) in general, I find our extended vocabulary a bit artificial and difficult to operate with: we use relatively common words of plain English in the diagrams and text AND re-define them in our special definitions. Since the words are common, the reader may not suspect that there is special ontology/semantic is meant in our vocabulary. I am afraid, it is overcomplicated. Here is one of many examples:
our term Listener is commonly understood as something that listens; one can comprehend this 'something' as a noun - an actor, an object, an entity, a participant, a stakeholder, a system, a human that listens - it is simple and easy; instead, our definition says: "A listener is an actor [OK!] who performs actions [wait a minute, this starts the mixture of concerns!] needed to acquire [where this comes from?] a communication [why is this about a communication only? If an actor listens to acquire not a communication but something else, e.g. RWE, it is not a Listener any more, is it?..]"
For given example, I would not define term Listener at all, it is clearly understood w/o our definition.
Chris and I have finished a new version of the definitions table, as requested.
The attached version includes:
- A new sheet indicating where terms are used in Figures – we have “only” (yes, there are more than 150 of them…) included those terms that have not already been listed having a formal definition – we indicate the first occurrence of the term in a diagram as well as (where it is defined) the line number of the definition in the 17 Jan draft
- A new column in those sheets with definitions, that indicates the other concepts referred to in the term definition
- The ‘unused’ list is now only terms that are really not used at all, anywhere, in the text but may still appear on a diagram
We have not yet included the revised understanding of the concepts of state, shared state, shareable state, joint action, interaction, RWE, execution context – as well as our further understanding of the relationship of those concepts to the SOA ecosystem – I will write up my notes from the offline discussions and circulate those later Thursday.
Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
Blog pensivepeter.wordpress.com
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA