[cap-talk] Delegating Responsibility in Digital Systems: Horton's "Who Done It?"

[Jed Donnelley]

Charles Landau wrote:
> At 12:49 AM -0700 5/16/07, Jed Donnelley wrote:
>
>> One that I've expressed concern about is the business
>> of 'thinking', e.g.:
>>
>> A in step (1), executes b.foo(c),
>> "thinking" it is sending the message "foo" to receiver
>> B with a reference to object C as an argument.
>>
>> I know what is meant and I've gradually become more comfortable
>> with that construct, but I don't see why A can't know exactly
>> what is going on (could in any case) and still chooses to
>> execute b.foo(c) knowing that b is actually the identity
>> tracking proxy P1 and c is the identity tracking proxy P2.
>>     
>
> A could know that, but the premise of the example is that A  is 
> "unaware of Horton".
>
>   
Why is that the premise?  The example stands whether A is unaware of 
Horton or
if A is aware of Horton - e.g. using Horton to delegate responsibility 
for a permission.
I believe both cases are useful and the interface is the same in any 
case.  I personally
find the know delegation case of more use, but I can see the value in 
both.  For me
saying that A is unaware of Horton detracts rather than adding anything.

Actually looking at the current state of the paper I think this is an 
issue that MarkM
and I already worked out.  The current version states:

A executes b.foo(c), intending to send the message "foo" to receiver B 
with a reference to
object C as an argument (Figure 1, (01)).

I believe the above statement is independent of the intent of A - it 
works both for
invisible case and if there is an intent to communicate with delegated 
responsibility.

--Jed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/attachments/20070516/2c927fcc/attachment.html