RE: [soa-rm-ra] previous objections to Delegate

Sold.  I believe we have exceeded the 80% threshold intended
by the original comment.

 

Ken

 

From: Francis McCabe [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:25 AM

To: Laskey, Ken

Cc: 

Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] previous objections to Delegate

 

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