Re: [soa-rm-ra] Action Model One pager.... revised

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

I think Chris, or maybe it was Peter and I'm misremembering, captured 
the distinction between how we view "Action" in our "ecosystem" Action 
Model, e.g. the application of intent, and how other communities view 
it, e.g. as a synonym of OO "Method." I think this is where Ken's 
discomfort relating Action and JA arises. I hope that distinction can be 
included in Section 3 but only to the minimum extent, if at all. If it 
muddies anything, we should not include it. I can live without it.

I'm happy with Peter's formulation. I can use it as I need to. I agree 
that JA "can" be identified in what Ken is calling "interactions" but I 
see no reason why Peter's formulation can't be used for that if needed, 
given the "fractal" nature of Action and the definition of JA. The 
"coordinated" qualifier in the definition handles that.

Cheers,
Rex

On 3/16/11 4:24 AM, Laskey, Ken wrote:
> So I believe the pushback -- certainly from me -- is that the "invoking" is the joint action and what the provider does to realize the RWE is largely unknown and independent of the consumer.
>
> The unanswered question is whether interactions to establish the EC are also JA.  I'm sure Rex would say yes.  I don't think this is a significant problem or complication because it just emphasizes that most of SOA is dealing in community.  This raises the significance of trust and willingness and the fact that, especially across ownership boundaries, execution context cannot be taken for granted.  Consistent policies and semantic engagement are just as important as getting the endpoint right.  I think this is the message of the ecosystem view.
>
> I am still left with the question of how JA relates to Action.  Right now, I'm leaning toward Action as only being a part of the Action Model and JA being the ecosystem interactions.  That leaves the sticky problem of how action is then the "application of intent".  I cringe at the idea of bringing back service action as what's in the Action Model, but that is a possibility.
>
> So we'd have Action as something general, JA as action between 2 or more actors, and a separate (service) action that is what the consumer asks the service to do to realize the described RWE.
>
> Still not neat and clean but I think the direction we need to go.
>
> 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: Peter F Brown [peter@peterfbrown.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:27 AM
> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Action Model One pager.... revised
>
> Hi:
> As requested, here is an update of the (slightly more than) one-pager covering the issues of action. This takes into account the main points raised over the last week and – if acceptable – will be used as the basis to reword the relevant parts of section 3
>
> Talk tomorrow,
> Peter
>
> Peter F Brown
> Independent Consultant
> [cid:image001.png@01CBE357.B91DD0F0]
> Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
> Web         www.peterfbrown.com
> Blog          pensivepeter.wordpress.com
> LinkedIn  www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter
> Twitter     @pensivepeter<http://twitter.com/#!/@pensivepeter>
> P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
> Tel: +1.310.694.2278
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>