Folks,
Remember, there are only two types of
action:
1. [Separate] "Action," which is the application of intent by
[A] participant (or agent) in order to achieve a RWE.
2. "Joint Action," which is an action involving the efforts of
[TWO OR MORE] participants to achieve a RWE.
Note: The emphasis in brackets is
mine.
In the context of interaction, we emphasize "joint action"
because you have to have a speaker AND a listener in order to interact.
Further, recall that we define the means by which joint actions [and event
notifications] are coordinated by service participants (or agents) to be
"message exchange," and we define "operations" as the sequence of actions a
service must perform in order to validly participate in a joint action.
Consequently, there are indeed separate actions that
service performs (i.e., perform operations) and there are joint actions [and
event notifications] used for message exchange. This is why we make the
point that messages denote either action (more accurately, joint
action) that causes a RWE and events that report a RWE.
What we should probably do is make the emphasis on joint
action relative to Fig. 40 (based on PRD 1 of the RA) so as to not cause this
kind of confusion. The emphasis on joint action isn't really addressed in
until later in Section 4.3.2 when we talk about message exchange. In
addition, it is not just the joint action realized through messages that causes
a RWE to occur but also the separate actions (i.e., operations) that the service
performs that contribute to the RWE, i.e., it is both types of action
performed in concert that leads to a RWE. This point is not clearly
articulated in the RA and needs to be.
If yawl agree, I'll make the necessary minor updates
to the Interacting with Services model to help resolve this
ambiguity before the next PRD.
Cheers...
- Jeff
