[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [egov] Proposed Use Case template
Hi David, I joined BCM as an observer to get a better idea of what you are speaking to and because I did not want to engage in a discussion on the relative pros and cons of adopting a predominantly "Business" viewpoint where governmental functions are required without first exposing myself to what is being presented. Since signing up by no means provides the background needed, I have some study to do, but having observed, and largely applauded, the move to "Enterprise Architecture" from several viewpoints over the last couple of years, but largely in a standards-oriented viewpoint through my participation in OASIS, I think we need to be careful just how extensively we adopt that model without due consideration to appropriateness to specific governmental functionalities. One doesn't want adoption of the model to mean adoption of all practices. I'm just getting my feet wet in this, so I will hold further discussion in abeyance until I learn more. Ciao, Rex At 10:28 AM -0500 2/11/04, David RR Webber wrote: >Rex, > >From the BCM perspective there is the business >analysis template that sits above the use case >diagrams - and specifies from the business view >what the goals, outcomes, behaviours should >be. This then breaks out into one or more (usually >more) use case diagrams underneath that showing >the technology view. > >DW. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com> >To: "Ockert Cameron" <ockertc@tshimollo.net>; "'Farrukh Najmi'" ><Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>; "'Rex Brooks'" <rexb@starbourne.com> >Cc: "'Tim Benson'" <tim.benson@abies.co.uk>; "'OASIS eGov list'" ><egov@lists.oasis-open.org> >Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:29 AM >Subject: RE: [egov] Proposed Use Case template > > >> Thanks, Ockert, >> >> This is good news, even if Windows-specific in terms of OS on which >> the toolset works, which is okay for me personally since it supports >> Java and C++ which can then be worked on other platforms. >> >> However, the question at issue isn't the cost of the toolset or even >> a choice between one or another modeling language per se, although I >> personally prefer UML. The question is one of grounding the >> derivation of the use-cases. The simplified model of ontological >> participants Farrukh suggests is very high level and assumes a Domain >> Expert, Content Publisher and a Registry Group and that's fine at a >> high level. I'm suggesting developing lower level scenarios more >> appropriate to the domains for which Farrukh's model assumes a Domain >> Expert. >> >> I think we might want to put our initial focus there, gathering >> exemplar scenarios that uses the template I offered which has already >> seen some successful use in the WSRP TC for laying out roles, >> functions and responsibilities before a modeling tool or model is >> applied to formally analyze, operate, prepare comparative reports and >> distribute reports in preparation for policy-making decisions or >> other management actions. I think it might be wise to prepare such >> materials in order to define requirements for what is needed to >> perform functions such as gathering specific data inputs, classifying >> and sorting inputs, filling in forms, performing transforms, >> allocating IT resources, compiling statistical knowledge >> representations of transformed data, preparing decision-making >> models, etc. >> >> In other words, it is actually a workflow decision on whether to >> assume we know enough a priori to move immediately to a use-case >> model or whether evaluating a population of scenarios grounded in >> actual experience beforehand makes sense. The one reason I can think >> of that favors evaluating scenarios first is that there may be more >> than one or even a few use-case models that would serve better in > > different situations, such as the differences between environmental >> impact reports and developing building codes for different >> microclimates and/or geological factors, or evaluating the effects of >> trade policies long and short term, etc. I suspect that we probably >> will find that we need to narrow down what constitutes a Domain >> Expert for different domain sets. >> >> Ciao, >> Rex >> >> At 7:06 AM +0200 2/11/04, Ockert Cameron wrote: >> >We use a modeling tool called EA from http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/ - >it >> >is very powerfull, and can run standalone or using a central RDBMS such >as >> >MySQL. In terms of international recognized tool sets such as Rose, EA is >> >around 28 times cheaper, and have almost comparable functionality. Would >the >> >use of such a tool not potentially solve the problem? >> > >> >Regards >> >Ockert Cameron >> >Solutions Architect >> >Dept of Justice and Constitutional Development >> >South Africa >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] >> >Sent: 10 February 2004 10:44 PM >> >To: Rex Brooks >> >Cc: Tim Benson; OASIS eGov list >> >Subject: Re: [egov] Proposed Use Case template >> > >> >Rex Brooks wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> If what is being proposed fits the actual scenarios, then we will know >> >> that we are grounded. Being grounded is more important, it seems to >> >> me, than creating structures at this point, although I am sure that a >> >> great deal of experience with "systems" has gone into this model, and >> >> it may well be accurate and useful, but I can't tell that in the >abstract. >> > >> >I agree that being grounded is more important. I was assuming (maybe >> >incorrectly) that structure helps achive grounding. I certainly do not >want >> >to be overly prescriptive to the point were structure (the means) becomes >a >> >barrier to achieving grounding (the end). >> > >> >> >> >> Please take no offense, Farrukh, I hope it proves out that your model >> >> is well drawn and fits many more instances than those I cite, but I >> > > have no background that enables me to reckon that. >> > >> >Absolutely none taken. You raise a valid concern that we could get bogged >> >down by form rather than focus on substance. >> > >> >My suggetsion came from having observed in many situation discussion that >> >sometime tend to meander without any governing structure. Use cases are >an >> >important methodology for addressing that. I went a step further to >suggest >> >a form for managing use cases. >> >In the Semantic Content Management SC we are trying on the side of more >> >formal structure with hyperlinks between use cases etc. >> >Lets see how this works out. >> > >> >We have a wealth of experience here in the egov TC. What may help is to >hear >> >what people's experience has been in managing use cases effectively. >> >Thanks. >> > >> >-- >> >Regards, >> >Farrukh >> > >> > >> > >> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of >the >> >OASIS TC), go to >> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup.p >h >> >p. >> >> >> -- >> Rex Brooks >> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth >> W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com >> Email: rexb@starbourne.com >> Tel: 510-849-2309 >> Fax: By Request >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of >the OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup.php. >> >> -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com Email: rexb@starbourne.com Tel: 510-849-2309 Fax: By Request
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]