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

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.
>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 set
>>'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 >
>>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
>>Chair, OASIS EM-TC
>>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]