OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case

Elysa et al


We did nail down a position for HAVE – the Statement of Use will be based on the conformance section in the Standard. For HAVE, we have defined the conformance targets and provided a definition of a ‘conformance target’


I am not sure why we are revisiting this issue - the below positions seem to be specific to RM, and if so, it should dealt in the conformance section for RM. I will let the MSG SC members weigh in on this – but, I am sure they have discussed this to some extent. I am not in favor of overloading the statement of use.








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 >

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.

Elysa Jones
Warning Systems, Inc.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]