[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case
Thanks Lee, I'm fairly sure Elysa meant "Statement of Use" not "Use Cases," especially not UML Use Cases. As a side question, can you work with a Java Server Faces EDXL-RM application? I'm asking because I want to provide the application I'm working on (rather infrequently just now) in open source for other folks to adapt, extend and/or complete. I'm using NetBeans 6.0 as my IDE, and JSF is just easier and more reliable than vanilla JSP. Cheers, Rex At 4:50 PM -0400 4/17/08, Lee Tincher wrote: >Just a note - all Drafts coming in from DHS >through EC will have Use Cases and several >Scenarios attached as part of the documentation >setŠŠ > >Thanks, >Lee >'There are only two ways that you can live life. >One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is >as if everything is a miracle. I believe in the >latter' - Albert Einstien > >From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com] >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30 AM >To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: [emergency] Use Case > >TC Members, > >We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on >what constitutes a "Use case" in our Standards. >Most of you have been aware of this topic but we >have not nailed down a position. We must do >this before we can make the big push to get use >cases for HAVE and RM. > >This topic came up during the EIC meeting >yesterday. There are several EIC members that >know of companies that may want to be the first >or one of the first to advertise such a use >case. We need to give them specific wording on >what constitutes this "use". OASIS requires the >statement to be in agreement with the >conformance clause of the specification. We as >a TC can cause this to be more or less stringent >and there are schools of thought on both. > >Please review the two positions on the matter >identified below and respond to the list on your >preference. Although this does not require a >formal vote of the TC, I want to make sure we >have a good understanding and consensus on how >we proceed. > >Position 1: > >Comply with the full element reference model - >required elements at a minimum. If a message is >sent that complies with the ERM, then you can be >compliant with any of the specific messages. >Deliver a RequestResource message and a >ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 >messages). >If a vendor does either or, for purposes of >statement of use and getting the standard out >the door, this should be the minimum requirement. > >Position 2: > >Agreed with position 1 >A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource >Deployment should be the minimum: >RequestResource > >ResponseToRequestResource > >RequisitionResource > >CommitResource > >ReleaseResource. > >The messages about the deployment, requesting >information, release, etc are not necessary, >just the 5 listed. > >NOW - please make your comments to the list. >The Mst/Not SC will schedule a meeting either >Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss. From this >a recommendation will be made. Respond to this >message too with which date and what times you >would be available. > >Regards, >Elysa Jones >Chair, OASIS EM-TC >CTO/COO >Warning Systems, Inc. -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]