I want to keep the original sentiment. However, the English is poor. I suggest:
Note that the normal situation is where participants are either human or
organizations; but it is possible to envisage participants that are purely automatic
The reason is straightforward: we should not eliminate scenarios where participants are actually agents (in the sense of autonomous agents). In some cases entire ecosystems will be populated with such agents. None of the architecture actually depends on participants being human.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
I had an action to clarify my concerns relative to the current text. As it turns out, most of the text I objected to has been removed, which is why the comment did not seem to fit. My only remaining issue is lines 712-714 is a remnant from what was otherwise deleted and is now confusing on its own. I would suggest deleting
“Note that we admit non-human participants that have no identifiable representative as an extreme case: the normal situation is where participants are either human or organizations.”
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
