Agreed, first things first. However, I think we could use the venerable
furniture moving situation with participants A and B, and for the sake
of setting it into a context, let's say A takes the single action of:
A sends an email to B: Hi B, Can you help me move this table Saturday?
Results:
Wild Card: the email disappears with no bounce notice. It's possible but
doesn't help us, so I propose we ignore it for the sake of getting to
the atomic level of granularity.
B can miss or ignore email, and no Joint Communicative Action occurs.
(Let's dismiss the philosophical question about whether a negative joint
action occurred because we can't establish a priori whether B notices
the email or not, and if B does and ignores it, no one else knows
either, and it doesn't matter.)
B can answer: Hi A, Sure, and a Joint Communicative Action occurs
whether the table ever gets moved or not.
B can answer: Hi A, I'm busy Saturday, but I could do it Sunday. How
does that work for you? and a Joint Communicative Action occurs whether
the table ever gets moved or not.
B can answer: Hi A. No, and a Communicative Joint Action occurs even if
the outcome does not lead to a Joint (Physical) Action resulting in the
intended Real Word Effect.
In any event, before the Joint (Physical) Action can occur, some
Communicative Joint Action needs to take place and I think this is the
level of atomic granularity I referred to previously.
Cheers,
Rex
Ken Laskey wrote:
> I spent a fair amount of time talking with Cory about what was joint
> action we cared about vs. single action. Was it always joint action?
> Was single action just a degenerate or failed case, e.g. I sent a
> message to you but you didn't receive it (by failure or due to
> refusal). Cory also feels that the Joint Action concept provides
> something that would be missing otherwise but our discussion didn't
> clearly identify what that is.
>
> Anyway, first PR2 and then we come up with and stick to a plan for
> running this to ground.
>
> Ken
>
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Thornton, Danny R (IS) wrote:
>
>> No drowning that cat now! It's out of the bag and running free.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Ken Laskey [mailto:]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:48 PM
>> *To:*
>> <mailto:> RA
>> *Subject:* [soa-rm-ra] Fwd: DM2 Soa Modeling - SoaML Perspective
>> working meeting
>>
>> I attended a meeting on the DoDAF metamodel (DM2) and Cory Casanave
>> presented this brief showing soaML modeling. Some of the latter
>> stuff still in the discussion phase has to do with this weird thing
>> called Joint Action. Take a look and consider how it relates to the
>> RA concept.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>
>
>
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
