RE: [emergency] Use Case

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

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