@@ -14,13 +14,15 @@ A word in mid-sentence that is capitalized is a %%term|term%% that has a %%defin
:::note
We are working towards deprecating this convention, as we now have better ways of referring to words that are defined in the eSSIF-Lab Corpus..
:::
### Pattern diagram notations
%%Pattern|pattern%% diagrams will be visualized in this document using a UML-like notation, as follows:
- a **rectangle** represents a (named) concept. Concepts serve as entity-classes. Their (operational) extensions, i.e. the respective sets of (runtime) instances, are disjunct.
- a **solid line with a closed arrowhead** represent a (named) relation/association between the two concepts it connects. The concept at the arrowhead is called the ‘target concept’ (TGT) for that relation. The concept at the other end is called the ‘source concept’ (SRC) for that relation. Names are chosen such that `<SRC> <relation name> <TGT>` is a phrase that suggests the intension(al definition) of that relation.
- a **solid line with a closed arrowhead** represent a (named) relation/association between the two concepts it connects. We may refer to the concept at the arrowhead as the ‘target concept’ (TGT) for that relation. Similarly, the concept at the other end will be referred to as the ‘source concept’ (SRC) for that relation. Names are chosen such that `<SRC> <relation name> <TGT>` is a phrase that suggests the intension(al definition) of that relation.
- a **green name** at either end of a relation/association is what UML calls 'role'; this name may be used to refer to (an instance of) the concept at which the name is placed as it performs its/this role in this relation.
- a **dashed line** signifies that its intension is created by combination the intensions of other relations (it is a ‘shorthand’ for a path of other relations).
- an **open-ended arrow** is an ‘ISA’ relation, which can be read as `<SRC> ISA <TGT>`. It means that SRC is a specialization of TGT (which is a generalization of SRC). Thus, SRC must satisfy all constraints that TGT must satisfy, and has all attributes (including properties) that TGT has.
-**Multiplicities** use the [n..m] notation. When a multiplicity is omitted, [0..n] is intended.
@@ -26,4 +26,4 @@ An **Action** is something that is done by an actor, can be considered a single
- OED defines Action as the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim ([OED](https://www.lexico.com/definition/action)), which is too generic for our purposes.
### Background
The %%party-action pattern|pattern-party-actor-action%% provides an overview of how this concept fits in with related concepts.
\ No newline at end of file
The %%Parties, Actors and Actions pattern|pattern-party-actor-action%% provides an overview of how this concept fits in with related concepts.
%%Actors|actor%% execute %%actions|action%% for, or on behalf of some %%party|party%% (the %%principal|principal%% of that agent), because parties are not considered to be capable of acting.[^1] Agents must act in accordance with their %%principal|principal%%, which means that for every kind of action, the principal must provide the proper guidance for their agents, e.g. in terms of policies (rules), working instructions, programs etc. We use the term %%digital agent|digital-agent%% to refer to agents that operate in a digital domain.
%%Actors|actor%% execute %%actions|action%% for, or on behalf of some %%party|party%% (the %%principal|principal%% of that agent), because parties are not considered to be capable of acting. Agents must act in accordance with their %%principal|principal%%, which means that for every kind of action, the principal must provide the proper guidance for their agents, e.g. in terms of policies (rules), working instructions, programs etc. We use the term %%digital agent|digital-agent%% to refer to agents that operate in a digital domain.
### Purpose
The ability to distinguish between (non)agents is relevant in many situations, including:
...
...
@@ -29,4 +29,4 @@ a property that is attributed to an %%Actor|actor%% whenever it is executing an
- A wallet app that runs on a phone and that is exclusively used by a single person acts as a (digital) Agent for that person.
### Background
The %%party-action pattern|pattern-party-actor-action%% provides an overview of how this concept fits in with related concepts.
The %%Parties, Actors and Actions pattern|pattern-party-actor-action%% provides an overview of how this concept fits in with related concepts.
<!--State the purpose(s) for which it is necessary (or at least: desirable) to define <New Term>.-->
The ability to distinguish between (non)digital colleagues allows us to reason and communicate about the set of %%digital actors|digital-actor%% that are %%agents|agent%% for a single **principal|principal%%.
<!--REQUIRED--in 1-3 sentences that describe the concept to a layperson with reasonable accuracy.-->
A glossary is an alphabetically sorted list of terms and explanations, usually aimed to help people understand texts around a certain (set of) topic(s) in some context(s). However, a glossary may also be created for the purpose of being included in other glossaries (as a construction aid to such glossaries), or for still other purposes.
A **glossary** is an alphabetically sorted list of %%terms|term%% with explanations, usually aimed to help people understand texts around a certain (set of) topic(s) in some context(s). However, a glossary may also be created for the purpose of being included in other glossaries (as a construction aid to such glossaries), or for still other purposes.
### Purpose
<!--Describe why the concept is needed. What purposes does it serve? What can you do with it that you cannot do (as well) without it? What objectives does it help realize? Why is this conceptevant within its scope of definition?-->
...
...
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ A glossary may serve various purposes, the most important one of which would be
### Criteria
<!--REQUIRED--How is this concept different from related ideas? What are essential characteristics that must be true? This is where you specify the [intensional definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions) of the concept, i.e. the necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. This makes that the conceptomes crystal clear. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.-->
an alphabetical list of words or phrases with (short) explanations, that exists for the purpose of helping people to get a first understanding of the meaning of each word in the scope/context for which the glossary is created.
A **glossary** is an alphabetical list of words or phrases with (short) explanations, that exists for the purpose of helping people to get a first understanding of the meaning of each word in the scope/context for which the glossary is created.
### Examples
<!--This (optional) section contains examples, both of what satisfies the definition (and hence qualifies as an instance of Glossary), ans what does not. If you can think of examples for which the criterion may not (always) work, then describe them, too, and inform the reader why this hasn't affected the definition (yet) - e.g. because such cases are irrelevant to the scope within which the term is defined.-->
**Knowledge** is the (intangible) sum of what is known, the familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something ([WikiPedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge)). It includes facts ([propositional knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_knowledge)), skills ([procedural knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_knowledge)), or objects ([acquaintance knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_by_acquaintance)). Knowledge can be acquired in many different ways and from many different sources, including but not limited to experience, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice.
We limit the scope of a Knowledge to a %%party|party%% so as to allow for the existence of multiple such Knowledges, where each of them is internally consistent, yet may be inconsistent with other Knowledges.
### Purpose
We need a term to refer to the (intangible) sum of what is known, the familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something of a %%party|party%%, because this is what allows the party to reason, and make decisions. When a party can successfully share (parts of) its knowledge, i.e. communicate it such that when another party interpret it, the intension is preserved, mutual understanding is achieved, which is prerequisite for doing business transactions and/or collaborating.
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ An **Organization** is a group of people that work to realize one or more object
### Purpose
<!--Describe why the concept is needed. What purposes does it serve? What can you do with it that you cannot do (as well) without it? What objectives does it help realize? Why is this concept relevant within its scope of definition?-->
The purpose of documenting this term is to provide additional clarity w.r.t. definitions given in english dictionaries. Also, we need this notion as it is used in the eSSIF-Lab %%party-action pattern|pattern-party-actor-action%%.
The purpose of documenting this term is to provide additional clarity w.r.t. definitions given in english dictionaries. Also, we need this notion as it is used in the eSSIF-Lab %%Parties, Actors and Actions pattern|pattern-party-actor-action%%.
### Criteria
A (non-empty) group of people that work to realize a (non-empty) set of objectives.
<!--REQUIRED--in 1-3 sentences that describe the concept to a layperson with reasonable accuracy.-->
The property of a %%Party|party%% that has the legal or rightful title to control something. We interpret 'legal' and 'rightful' as terms that apply to _any_ %%Jurisdiction|jurisdiction%% (that is: not just %%legal/national jurisdictions|legal-jurisdiction%%, but also those of other %%organizations|organization%% (%%parties|party%%).
An **Owner** is a role that a %%Party|party%% performs when it is exercizing its legal or rightful title to control some %%entity|entity%%. We interpret 'legal' and 'rightful' as terms that apply to _any_ %%Jurisdiction|jurisdiction%% (that is: not just %%legal/national jurisdictions|legal-jurisdiction%%, but also those of other %%organizations|organization%% (%%parties|party%%).
### Purpose
<!--Describe why the concept is needed. What purposes does it serve? What can you do with it that you cannot do (as well) without it? What objectives does it help realize? Why is this concept relevant within its scope of definition?-->
### Criteria
<!--REQUIRED--How is this concept different from related ideas? What are essential characteristics that must be true? This is where you specify the [intensional definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions) of the concept, i.e. the necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. This makes that the concept becomes crystal clear. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.-->
A %%Party|party%% is said to be the **owner** of some %%entity|entity%% if and only if the party and the entity are %%legal entities|legal-entity%% in some %%jurisdiction|jurisdiction%%, and within the scope of that jurisdiction the party has the legal or rightful title to control the entity.
A %%Party|party%% is said to be the **owner** of some %%entity|entity%% if and only if the party and the entity are %%legal entities|legal-entity%% in some %%jurisdiction|jurisdiction%%, within the scope of which that party has the legal or rightful title to control the entity.
### Examples
<!--Provide a few sentences in which you give examples that obviously qualify as instances of `<New Term>`, and that do NOT obviously qualify. Also, provide examples that are not (so) obvious, but help users to better understand its intension.-->
...
...
@@ -38,14 +38,4 @@ A %%Party|party%% is said to be the **owner** of some %%entity|entity%% if and o
- shows the relevance of having `<New Term>` for the use-case as opposed to not having it.-->
### Notes
<!--This (optional) section is the place to put anything for which there is no other good place to put it.-->
<!--
---
### Footnotes
[//]:# This (optional) section contains any footnotes that may have been specified in the text above.
[^1]:the text for footnote [^1] goes here.
-->
<!--This (optional) section is the place to put anything for which there is no other good place to put it.-->
@@ -23,22 +23,30 @@ One may readily observe that in some way, people (humans) and %%organizations|or
The main characteristic that people and organizations share, is everyone of them maintains (a body of) %%knowledge|knowledge%%. They acquire knowledge by observing the world around them, processing such observations, storing all that (using specific (tangible) representations of these (intangible) things, and sharing/disseminating it with others (here again, (tangible) representations must be used). We introduce the term %%party|party%% to refer to %%entities|entity%% that share this characteristic of maintaining (a body of) knowledge. Both people and organizations qualify as such.
#### Coherence between Parties and Actors
One may also readily observe that in other ways, people and organizations differ. For example, people eat and drink, whereas organizations do not. People can sit behind a computer keyboard, type texts, hit the `Enter` button, e.g. to send an email. Organizations cannot do that. In short: people can act (do things), whereas organizations cannot. The characteristic that sets people and organizations apart is the ability to act.
We will use the term %%actor|actor%% to refer to %%entities|entity%% that are capable of acting (doing things). People will qualify, whereas organizations do not.
We will use the term %%actor|actor%% to refer to %%entities|entity%% that are capable of acting (doing things); people will qualify, whereas organizations do not.
Notwithstanding that organizations cannot act, it is quite common to hear statements that seem to imply that they can. If ACME is an organization and someone says: "I just received mail from ACME", this cannot be literally true as organizations cannot send messages. It is either a person or a computer system that has actually sent it. Statements such as these must therefor be interpreted in a figurative way, as a 'shorthand' for 'I just received mail that was sent by some %%actor|actor%% that `was acting on behalf of` ACME'.
When an %%actor|actor%% is `acting on behalf of` some %%party|party%%, it is executing a single %%action|action%%. This constraint is necessary as we must allow actors to multi-taks, i.e. execute different actions more or less simultaneously, where it might execute each such action on behalf of a different party.
In this relation `is acting on behalf of`, actor plays the role of %%agent|agent%% (of that party), and the party performs the role of %%principal|principal%% (of that actor).
Notwithstanding that organizations cannot act, it is quite common to hear statements that seem to imply that they can. If ACME is an organization and someone says: "I just received mail from ACME", this cannot be literally true as organizations cannot send messages. It is either a person or a computer system that has actually sent it. Statements such as these must therefor be interpreted in a figurative way, as a 'shorthand' for 'I just received mail that was sent by some %%actor|actor%% that was `working for` ACME', where`working for` may have various meanings:
Thus, being an agent implies that an action is being executed on behalf of some party. However, we also like to talk about actors for which it is realistic that they might do something for some party. It seems obvious that an actor, for which the party has the %%legal or rightful title to control|owner%% it, would qualify as such. But a party may also get actors that it doesn't %%own|owner%% to`work for`it. may have various meanings:
1. ACME may be the %%owner|owner% of that actor. This would be the case if the mail was sent by one of ACME's running business applications.
2. ACME may employ, or otherwise hire that actor. This would be the case if one of its employees sent the mail, or a business application that is owned by another party sent the mail on behalf of ACME. How this works is the subject of the pattern %%Mandates, Delegation and Hiring|pattern-mandates-delegation-hiring%%.
1. ACME may be the %%owner|owner% of that actor. This would be the case e.g.if the mail was sent by one of ACME's running business applications.
2. ACME may employ, or otherwise hire that actor. This would be the case e.g. if one of its %%employees|employee%% sent the mail, or a business application that is owned by another party sent the mail on behalf of ACME. How this works is the subject of the pattern %%Mandates, Delegation and Hiring|pattern-mandates-delegation-hiring%%.
Note that owning, employing (or hiring) an actor is a condition that usually exists for a considerable time, at least in the order of days (weeks, months). However, some actors (e.g. humans) are capable of multi-tasking, i.e. they can do several actions (pretty much) simultaneously. For example, a person that is working for some organization may make a personal phone call, or send a personal email during working hours. This shows that the 'working for` (some party) condition can mean two things: either it is the status/condition
- that allows/enables the actor to act on behalf of some party. We refer to that as `working for`, e.g. `actor A works for party P`.
- that allows/enables the actor to act on behalf of some party. We refer to that as `working for`, e.g. `actor A works for party P`. In this relation `works for`, the party performs the role of %%employer|employer%% (of that actor), and the actor plays the role of %%employee|employee%% of that party.
- the status/condition that an actor is executing a specific %%action|action%% on behalf of that party at some given point in time. We refer to that condition as `is acting on behalf of` or `is executing an action on behalf of`. We expect that whenever an actor is acting on behalf of some party, it must also work for that party.
%%Actions|action%% can usually be executed in different ways. For example, sending a mail on behalf of some organization may require that the mail template and logo of that organization be used. Or accepting an order usually requires a check to see the order is 'clean', i.e. can be processed by others in the organization. What a 'clean-order check' comprises is to be determined by the organization.
So in general, the execution of an action is (primarily) guided by the policies, working instructions etc. (i.e.: the %%knowledge|knowledge%%) of the party on whose behalf that action is executed. The actor can still use other, additional knowledge (of other parties) that it has access to, but the primary guidance that it *must* use originates from the party on whose behalf it executes the action. In the previous example, a person that would send mail on behalf of the organization would use its official paper, format the mail according to the organization's templates, comply with any other applicable requirements, and then use the knowledge of itself (as a person is a party) to provide the content, phrase sentences, etc.
In general, the execution of an action is (primarily) guided by the policies, working instructions etc. (i.e.: the %%knowledge|knowledge%%) of the party on whose behalf that action is executed. The actor can still use other, additional knowledge (of other parties) that it has access to, but the primary guidance that it *must* use originates from the party on whose behalf it executes the action. In the previous example, a person that would send mail on behalf of the organization would use its official paper, format the mail according to the organization's templates, comply with any other applicable requirements, and then use the knowledge of itself (as a person is a party) to provide the content, phrase sentences, etc.
Finally, we note that a party `owns` %%objectives|objective%% that it seeks to fulfill or realize, and these are part of its knowledge. The relevance of this is that a large number of the decisions that parties make have to do with their managing their %%risks|risk%% (which [ISO 27000](https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso-iec:27000:ed-4:v1:en)) defines as 'effect of uncertainty on objectives'), each of which is related to one or more of its objectives.
