[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case
Yes, I meant "Statement of Use" Elysa At 09:42 PM 4/17/2008, Rex Brooks wrote: >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]