Re: [ebxml-iic] Use cases for concurrent test cases - Schema andinstance examples

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Michael Kass wrote:

> Jacques,
>  
>    Here is an updated schema and use case instances, based on your 
> comments.
> We can use your suggestions ( using only <Split> and <Join>  as 
> operators ) to satisfy these
> use cases.  As I mentioned in my last post however, generating an 
> "asynchronous" thread requires
> a lot of "overhead" XML:
>  
>    A few things that I find worrisome is the inability to create the 
> following logic:
>  
> <If> ....   <Then> .... </Then> </If>
> <ElseIf> .....  <Then> ...   </Then>  </ElseIf>
> <Else>...  </Else> 
>  
> <Split> and <Join> alone do not permit such constructs.   I think that 
> it may be advantageous to
> use the above elements, rather than <Split> and <Join> so that we 
> won't find ourselves limited 
> by the syntax we choose.  If you can demonstrate how we can achieve 
> the above with <Split> and
> <Join> I can be convinced otherwise.  Perhaps I am missing something.
>  
>   I will send a modified schema ( using <If> <Then> <Else>  with use 
> case instances   Monday
> morning.  But for the three use cases that you presented, it apears 
> that <Split> and <Join> would
> suffice.
>  
> Cheers,
> Mike

mm1: Mike, a very simple question and request. We keep looking back to 
the BPSS for some of the constructs that may be required to show the 
mechanisms to model (in XML) the test paths.  Rather than continuing to 
create new constructs and conditional statements, we model the overall 
process in BPSS. We are almost there anyway.  We have been discussing 
fork, join, sequences, etc.  If you cannot effectively model this 
process in BPSS - 1) We may have new use cases for BPSS or 2) We may 
need to re-evaluate the new semantics under discussion. 

I am not asking to use the BPSS semantics but to look at the process we 
are trying to support first.