I have to say that I have no idea what you’re talking
about, but am enjoying the naming of new colors. Just like a new box of
Crayolas! (That said, may I point out that people who suffer from color
blindness typically suffer from red-green color blindness rendering the
distinction below undiscernable. ;-)
Pardon the interruption. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming
;-)
Mary
From: Ken Laskey
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:52 PM
To: Francis McCabe
Cc: soa-rm-ra
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] reaching closure on Action
Then my responses must be in
Lime.
Ken
On Jun 10, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
My responses in Strawberry...
Frank
On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
OK, let's see if we're getting somewhere?
Ken
P.S. This has to be resolved before we run out of distinct
colors.
On Jun 10, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
I changed the color of a few lines below to red because
these start getting to my questions.
Now while I'd still like you (or someone else) to respond to
the questions below (timestamp 6:59 AM) as stated, I can infer from your
response that anything done by a speaker with the purpose of applying
intent is Action on the part of the speaker, whether or not it is effective.
At a minimum, it requires a listener to have any chance to be effective.
However, from the context of the speaker, it is an action either way.
Yes.
If a listener hears what the speaker says, we have joint
action, in the form of CA.
Yes.
This still doesn't tell me how CA does something (i.e.
the initiating activity) to get something done, i.e the RWE.
Also, what is the intent applied by the listener? Is
it simply to hear what a speaker says? At a minimum, it should probably
also be interpreting the message and deciding if it is part of the Action Model
of the service it is listening for.
Yes.
However, I think that this is where the counts-as relation
comes in to play. For the listener to understand that a CA is supposed to
result in a service action, the listener must apply that relation. In effect,
there is a shift going on from communication actions to service actions.
You just can't say counts-as and sweep it under the rug.
How specific do we need to get?
I do not feel a need to sweep stuff under the carpet.
As I think Rex noted, we are
changing modes. The speaker successfully sent the message because the
listener received and was able to accurately interpret it. I believe this
requires more than would be required of a traditional listener. Is this
correct?
The CA phase is done and the
service action phase begins. The message is one recognized by the service
Action Model and the listener or the someone/something for which listening is
being done will then initiate activity in response to the interpretation of
receiving the message and processing its payload. The activity results in
RWE which are specific things that constitute providing the described business
functionality. There may be a Process Model that defines intermediate
public steps. Each of these will require a successful CA that leads to
initiating required action and further RWE, and this continue until the
processing is complete.
You may cover it below, but I
still ask whether the details of CA are needed in the general discussion or
only when the specifics of consumer and service agents are required.
Let me try to answer your questions directly:
- If a speaker does something that s/he believe is an
application of intent but it fails, what has happened?
Not much has happened; depending on where in the chain of
reasoning the failure occurred.
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?
I suspect that you cannot distinguish these cases in
general.
I think something auditing (attempted) interactions could
identify where and how consistently it failed.
If you succeed, do not forget to
patent it :)
I was thinking more of a Nobel
Prize in Services.
Does it matter if there was no listener or if the listener,
say as a defensive maneuver, didn't respond?
Without an active listener, there is no CA.
Does it matter if there is misunderstanding of the message
or the RWE and what results is not in line with the original intent?
It seems to me that there are several questions here:
a. If the listener knows that he has not understood, then he
can detect a failure at the level of the CA.
b. If the listener believes that he has understood, but in
fact his understanding is incorrect, then all bets are off. A higher-level
observer might be able to determine that a misunderstanding has occurred --
similar in a way to monitoring obligation policies.
c. If the listener has understood appropriately, but the RWE
is not what the speaker intended, then the law of unintended consequences seems
to apply :) My guess is that this is not even computable in the general case.
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.
Applying intent is independent of the result.
Glad this is resolved!
- If the application of intent
(1) the creation and sending of the message, or
For the speaker, there are three understandings of action
that need to be understood:
a. He intends to send the message
b. He intends to play his role in the joint action of
communication
c. He intends to play his role in the action conveyed in the
message.
what action is conveyed by the message?
I think that to properly resolve
this would imply going into speech act theory more deeply. One approach is to
standardize messages a la FIPA/KQML into performatives and propositional
content. I for one would not be averse to this, but I think that that may not
fly very well with the larger industry :)
No, we need a one line answer,
not a formal representation. From any of our variants of action, what
action is conveyed by the message? From my response above, I would say,
"initiate activity."
(2) the sending (speaker) and receiving
(listener) of the message, or
When both speaker and listener play their roles, they both
intend to take part in the join action of communication
(3) the sending (speaker), receiving (listener),
and activity initiation in response (who wanted listening to occur)?
As above, except that now we engage the counts-as relation
to shift the CA to the service action.
We have to say something more concrete than counts-as.
This sounds like my daughter trying to get homework credit because at
some point she put the assignment in her backpack.
Well, we do state somewhere that
messages denote actions and events. Is that sufficient? Almost certainly not in
practice. Do we need to do more? I do not know.
Consider the more I wrote above.
Again, a service action is also a joint action (in my
opinion).
How does this relate to Action in the service's Action
Model?
I think that the action model
characterizes the set of available actions against the service. They are all
joint actions in that other participants are (normally) performing those
actions. Something like the actual performance of a Service Action is a Joint
Action?
So the actual performance of a
service action (i.e., the receiving and interpreting of the incoming message
and initiating activity in response) is a Joint Action but the Action as
described in the Action Model is a potential. Whether I would say
singular depends on our definition of singular. But if not singular, we
still need a compelling example (which seems to have slipped away) of when is a
SOA-relevant action not a joint action.
The proper role for the listener (service) is to respond as
though the service action had been intended.
Then I get back to my question of whether we really need all
the redirection through the listener. The consumer invokes/directs an
action against a service by sending it a message and the service responds with,
in the ideal case, the stated RWE or, in a fault case, some explanation of what
went wrong. The joint action is between the consumer and the service,
possibly the service provider.
The code that is executed by a
listener is going to be pretty similar however you architect it. one benefit of
the CA/SA distinction is that it helps to clarify why the different parts of
that code belong in different places: service action code vs MEP code.
Does this get too concrete?
If there is an overall contextual point to be made, then we should make
it and make it clearly. If not, we have enough other things to write
about.
There is still the corner case where the listener is
listening, understands that a service action is intended, but is not willing to
participate in the service action. This is what we meant in the RM by
willingness.
This is just one of the possible responses that I allude to
above, and I don't think it is really a special case.
I agree. It is a corner case but
not an impossible case. What is going on there is that the CA is *successful*
but the SA is not.
In life, a response is sometimes
what you expect and sometimes not. Except for extreme cases, you just
process what happens and carry on. I tell my daughter to find another
copy of her homework assignment because it's really irrelevant if she didn't
put it in her backpack, she put it in but it fell out, or there really is a
miniature black hole that sucks it to another universe. The RWE of the
ice cream will not happen until the homework is done.
Getting late and I'm wandering.
Whichever one (or combination) you pick, please relate it
back to the Action Model.
Or is the service the listener?
Again, I was careful with the questions below because
answering those will get immediately to my pain points, and I hope those of
others too.
Ken
On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:04 PM, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
