[ihc] Re: [bcm] Correction: XML 2004 and Dec. TC Meeting

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi David,

I tend to think of the business needs in context, such as 
banking/financial/insurance in one bucket, with diagnosis, 
collaboration, treatment documentation and tracking in another and 
physician credentials, organization capabilities, etc in a third, but 
that's just me. UML does a good job of getting the classes ready to 
be plugged into the apps, at least for me. I don't usually ask for 
more at that point, but switch to a more business-centric toolsett. 
UML is right handy to disgram and look at workflows and model 
processes. Some tools can, of course, go much further, and depending 
on the client I might or might not continue on with a tool that 
extends beyond UML per se.

However, at that point we should be able to formally define our 
requirements for the purpose of writing standards specifications. 
 From there I generally only round-trip back to UML to make sure that 
we are following the methodology we set out with in order to verify 
our assumptions, or not and then make changes to that methodology and 
requirements based on what we have learned about that use case and 
those requirements.

So, generally speaking, that gives us the basis for a reasonable 
specification or to evaluate existing specifications/standards. It 
then allows us to move forward into applying disciplines such as, 
well, BCM and UBL to move on into applications and the architecture 
in which those applications are aimed to work, such as web services 
in an Enterprise Architecture built of Service-Oriented Architected 
components. In fact, this is the point at which your BCM eService 
concept ought to do a good job of carrying the work on to completion.

You are really good at setting me up, you know? This is exactly what 
you did at the combined IHC/BCM meeting, brief as it was. This is, of 
course, a generalization and simplification. Would that it were that 
simple, but someday maybe it will be.... y'think?

Ciao,
Rex

At 10:19 AM -0500 11/29/04, David RR Webber wrote:
>Rex,
>
>Of course we here at OASIS BCM are keenly interested in what happens 
>before the
>development team starts writing use cases - and then - after - once the use
>cases are done, what next?  How do you determine if the business needs
>are being met?
>
>While UML is a useful IT design tool - business implementations require more
>and natural tools that fit the domain and industry norms / skillsets and
>outcomes / controls needed that business stakeholders can interact with.
>
>I'm just here to pose the tougher questions...
>
>Cheers, DW
>============================================
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>>Hi Humlers, and others
>>
>>I need to correct a misstatement. The International Health 
>>Continuum is going to vote on the proposal to use UML as the tool 
>>of choice for developing use cases. This is not a decision that has 
>>been made. My personal opinion and assessment that this is likely 
>>got ahead of me, there. I apologize. I'm just itching to get on to 
>>the work.
>>
>>It seems so important to build some momentum here, that I forgot 
>>for a moment that we need to dot all our 'i's and cross all our 
>>'t's.
>>
>>Sorry, I will keep a tighter rein on my nethusiam.
>>
>>Ciao,
>>Rex


-- 
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