Understood, Frank,
I agree. We need to get this right.
Cheers,
Rex
At 9:04 AM -0700 6/10/08, Francis McCabe wrote:
>I think that we need to be clear about the distinction between
>action and effect.
>
>So, whether or not it is effective, action is the application of
>intent .... etc.
>
>The effect of performing an action is captured in the RWE.
>
>So, if a speaker says something, and noone was listening then:
>
>1. There was no communicative action
>2. The RWE was minimal (it is never completely null, but presumably
>no answer counts as much less of an effect than intended).
>
>For there to be a CA, there must have been some level of engagement,
>and hence some level of RWE. But it is still possible for that to be
>less than expected.
>
>It is possible for a speaker to intend to engage in a CA; without it
>happening. Both parties must intend for it to happen -- hence the
>joint part of the joint action.
>
>Frank
>
>P.S. To Rex: this discussion is clearly important for our own
>understanding. It is a separate question as to how much this affects
>the spec.
>
>
>On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:59 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>
>>I don't dispute the idea that for there to be communications and
>>*effective* application of intent, there needs to be a speaker and
>>a listener and they have to actively participate and understand
>>each other. The question is how this relates to the thing(s) we
>>call Action.
>>
>>Let me try to capture this in a couple questions:
>>
>>- If a speaker does something that s/he believe is an application
>>of intent but it fails, what has happened? Does it matter if the
>>application was insufficient and would never work or if this
>>instance of the application failed but in general it would work?
>>Does it matter if there was no listener or if the listener, say as
>>a defensive maneuver, didn't respond? Does it matter if there is
>>misunderstanding of the message or the RWE and what results is not
>>in line with the original intent?
>>For the case where we have an instance failure, we'll have a
>>challenge explaining how someone doing the exact same thing is
>>sometimes applying intent and sometimes not.
>>
>>- If the application of intent
>> (1) the creation and sending of the message, or
>> (2) the sending (speaker) and receiving (listener) of the message, or
>> (3) the sending (speaker), receiving (listener), and activity
>>initiation in response (who wanted listening to occur)?
>>Whichever one (or combination) you pick, please relate it back to
>>the Action Model.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>>
>>>I mis-stated something last night:
>>>
>>>>2. As far as a speaker providing intent without a listener that
>>>>is true. But the CA is not *effective* without a listener.
>>>
>>>This is true; but on reflection, it is beside the point.
>>>
>>>The critical point is that there can be no act of communication --
>>>no application of intent -- unless there is both a listener and
>>>speaker. So, if I talk to an empty room, I am talking but not
>>>communicating.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, even when we are communicating, it does not
>>>mean that it is successful communication: I can listen to you, and
>>>still fail to understand/act what you are saying.
>>>
>>>Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jun 9, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Laskey, Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>>I agree that the speaker and listener are actively involved in
>>>>communication. Our question is what is their involvement. When
>>>>does listening include the activities that the speaker wishes to
>>>>follow from not only the listening but hearing and understanding.
>>>>
>>>>In the Action Model, the service identifies the messages it
>>>>understands when it is a listener. It does not guarantee it will
>>>>do anything for any other messages. It does not need a speaker
>>>>present to still understand those messages.
>>>>
>>>>So the disconnects are:
>>>>1. There seems to need more than a speaker and a listener to have
>>>>a useful service interaction, i.e. the listener has to commit to
>>>>initiated activity. Our discussion doesn't include that.
>>>>2. The speaker can apply intent without the listener receiving
>>>>the message or responding. There is action on the part of the
>>>>speaker but no interaction.
>>>>3. Action, or at least potential action, exists on the part of
>>>>the listener without any speaker. There is potential for
>>>>interaction, there are prescribed steps in interaction, but there
>>>>is no interaction until until there is a speaker, an exchange of
>>>>information, and an understanding of that exchange.
>>>>
>>>>Ken
>>>>
>>>>P.S. We've been offlist for a while.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Francis McCabe [mailto:]
>>>>Sent: Mon 6/9/2008 9:55 PM
>>>>To: Laskey, Ken
>>>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
>>>>
>>>>Ken
>>>>There is a book that I recommend that you read. It is called "Using
>>>>Language" by Herbert Clark. It is pretty informal but gives an
>>>>excellent account of the concepts involved in human communication, and
>>>>by extension computer communication.
>>>>
>>>>Essentially, the bottom line is that both speaker and listener are
>>>>actively involved, and that the communication has not happened without
>>>>both participating. And he also addresses (not in the same language)
>>>>the counts-as relationship.
>>>>
>>>>As for denial of service, etc., I agree that willingness is an
>>>>essential part of what is going on. hence the active role of both
>>>>parties!
>>>>
>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Laskey, Ken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Arghh!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> In email , I'll buy that the speaker creates and sends the message,
>>>>> but the listener only becomes aware that the message exists. The
>>>>> speaker assumes whatever is listening will initiate the activity of
>>>>> opening and reading. As with a denial of service attack where it is
>>>>> appropriate to withhold/withdraw willingness, whatever has the
>>>>> listener may not process the email if they suspect embedded malware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:]
>>>>> Sent: Mon 6/9/2008 7:54 PM
>>>>> To: Laskey, Ken
>>>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
>>>>>
>>>>> No, this does not get the join action aspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit that I thought some about the Patient in a CA. I believe that
>>>>> the Patient in a CA is the medium of communication. We jointly act on
>>>>> the email medium when we communicate by email. It is a little tricky
>>>>> because there is some danger of infinite regress:
>>>>>
>>>>> I act on an email to compose it and to push it into the Internet. You
>>>>> act on the email to open it and read it. But these actions are the
>>>>> actions of Speaking and Listening respectively. The Joint CA is the
>>>>> combination of the two. In that world, we are using the Internet
>>>>> (actually SMTP) as a means of communicating and we act on it by
>>>>> sending and receiving messages (the messages become the Instruments of
>>>>> our CAs).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Wouldn't
>>>>> >
>>>>> > CA -> Agent -> Speaker=Initiator
>>>>> > CA -> Instrument -> Message[Do ServiceActionPerformative]
>>>>> > CA -> Patient -> Listener=Service
>>>>> > CA -> Verb -> CA_Performative
>>>>> >
>>>>> > where I assume CA_Performative is pass message. I can't see having
>>>>> > two Agents and no Patient.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For a ServiceAction SA, we get
>>>>> >
>>>>> > SA -> Agent -> Initiator
>>>>> > SA -> Instrument -> CA
>>>>> > SA -> Patient -> Service
>>>>> > SA -> Verb -> ServiceActionPerformative
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is ServiceActionPerformative what I have called Initiating Activity?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Ken
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> There is nothing about intent that denies join intent. A joint
>>>>> >> action necessarily implies joint intent -- both speak and listener
>>>>> >> intend that there be a communication.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> And yes, the communicative action involves *both* the sender and
>>>>> >> the receiver.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> And no, the service action is *not* singular: it is the actor
>>>>> >> acting on the acted.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If we expand the ontology of action a little bit:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Action -> Agent
>>>>> >> Action -> Instrument
>>>>> >> Action -> Patient
>>>>> >> Action -> Verb
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> where Agent is the entity performing the action, Instrument is the
>>>>> >> tool with which the action is performed, Patient is the target of
>>>>> >> the action and Verb is the action being performed.
>>>> > >>
>>>>> >> Then, for a CA, we get
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> CA -> Agent -> [Speaker=Initiator, Listener=Service]
>>>>> >> CA -> Instrument -> Message[Do ServiceActionPerformative]
>>>>> >> CA -> Patient -> None
>>>>> >> CA -> Verb -> CA_Performative
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> For a ServiceAction SA, we get
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> SA -> Agent -> Initiator
>>>>> >> SA -> Instrument -> CA
>>>>> >> SA -> Patient -> Service
>>>>> >> SA -> Verb -> ServiceActionPerformative
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The counts-as relation has to map the two actions, probably as here
>>>>> >> by linking the Instrument of the CA to different parts of the SA,
>>>>> >> as well as some implied linking between Listener/Service etc..
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> This is probably a whole lot more detailed than we should go into
>>>>> >> in the spec; but if *we* need to to convince ourselves, so be it :)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Frank
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Jun 9, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> I still have the question of whether Action as the application of
>>>>> >>> intent requires a receipt of that intent. This is back to the
>>>>> >>> singular vs. communicative nature of the Action.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> If the message is the Action, then the Action has to be both the
>>>>> >>> sending AND receiving of the message in order for it to be a
>>>>> >>> communicative action. Intent sounds like one way; it is my
>>>>> >>> motivation and the action is my acting on that motivation, but
>>>>> >>> that is all separate from the receiver.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The Service Action, OTOH, is singular on the side of the service/
>>>>> >>> receiver. The service Action Model delineates what messages need
>>>>> >>> to be sent in order for certain "activities" to be carried out,
>>>>> >>> leading to certain RWE. The Action Model exists independent of a
>>>>> >>> speaker.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The Communicative Action CANNOT count-as the Service Action
>>>>> >>> because one requires a speaker and the other does not.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Ken
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> 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
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >>> Ken Laskey
>>>>> >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>>>>> >>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax:
>>>>> 703-983-1379
>>>>> >>> McLean VA 22102-7508
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> > Ken Laskey
>>>>> > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>>>>> > 7515 Colshire Drive fax:
>>>>703-983-1379
>>>>> > McLean VA 22102-7508
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
