I neglected to hit "reply-to-all" so I'm forwarding to the sc list.
Cheers,
Rex
>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:54:57 -0700
>To: Francis McCabe <>
>From: Rex Brooks <>
>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>This works for me.
>
>2. I prefer Joint Action as subclass of Action, but would not
>quibble with particular use.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>
>>I believe that there are 4 'concepts' of action involved:
>>
>>1. The abstract sense of Action. Application of intent etc.
>>2. Abstract Joint Action (which is either a subclass of Action or a
>>particular use of Action; not sure of the right relationship).
>>3. Communicative Action (which is a subclass of Abstract Joint Action)
>>4. Service Action which is an Action against a Service (which is
>>described in the Action Model and the Process Model)
>>
>>3. and 4. are connected via the counts-as relationship:
>>
>>A valid Communicative Action counts as a Service Action
>>
>>At some level, all of these should be introduced and explained in Section 3.
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Fellow Explorers,
>>>
>>>We've had some very stimulating discussions over the past few
>>>weeks but I feel there are other things caught in limbo until we
>>>reach some consensus. I don't think we are plagued by major
>>>disagreements but rather the different facets of complexity for
>>>the range of things we want to capture and make understandable to
>>>a wider audience.
>>>
>>>So I think we need a plan for how to proceed. The elements of
>>>such a plan would cover
>>>1. capturing the different facets;
>>>2. capturing where in the document these facets currently live;
>>>3. work a consistent understanding that covers all the facets.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, this is not an 80-20 situation because a standard
>>>that only covers 80% of the scope is looking for trouble.
>>>
>>>Now I would suggest an extended call (all day?) but I realize we
>>>are all busy and that may not be feasible. What's more is it may
>>>not be productive unless we have all the background material
>>>together going in.
>>>
>>>As a precursor to an extended meeting (or even a regular meeting),
>>>is it possible for us to have a short list of questions and for
>>>the author of each section to satisfy items 1 and 2 above through
>>>the answers? Would that be enough to help structure a productive
>>>(and hopefully not too long) call?
>>>
>>>I haven't yet considered the questions, but figured I'd float the
>>>idea and see if someone came up with something better.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Ken Laskey
>>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>>>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
>>>McLean VA 22102-7508
>>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and 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
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
