[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call
Diane, +1 to Harvey's recommendation. Also, starting at 3:30 pm ET is 5:30 am Australia in winter. Yin Leng -----Original Message----- From: Harvey Reed [mailto:hreed@sonicsoftware.com] Sent: Friday, 20 June 2003 12:44 AM To: 'Diane Jordan' Cc: jevdemon@microsoft.com; wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call Diane, <caution> If we start at 3:30pm ET (12:30pm PT) this may run into time boundaries for Asia. </caution> <opinion> Having a 2-part con-call would be efficient, since much of the business of the uc sub group is related to the issue/req sub group. Having the issue/req part of our con-call first will resolve dependencies for later in the call. </opinion> <recommendation> Lead the first part of the call, by calling for the issue/req sub group to describe/review their process (by email prior to the call is best). Then we can determine the intersection points with the interest/charter of the uc sub group. Then we can describe our process (to the best of our knowledge at this point), and determine what data/artifacts are passed back and forth, and dependencies on TC voting, etc. Then we can have the rest of the call with just the uc subgroup, and resolve remaining ambiguities. </recommendation> <reminder> Both sub groups promised to have substantive progress to report by the next con-call to the TC </reminder> ++harvey -----Original Message----- From: Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:47 AM To: Harvey Reed Cc: jevdemon@microsoft.com; wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call I realized late yesterday that John and I were making plans for the same time. I haven't heard from all the folks involved in the issues/requirements process yet, but am thinking that perhaps we can start that discussion at 3:30 and then dovetail into the use cases - and maybe cover the points of intersection in the first part of the use case time slot. John, what do you think? Regards, Diane IBM Dynamic e-business Technologies drj@us.ibm.com (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123 Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com> 06/19/2003 08:17 AM To: jevdemon@microsoft.com, wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org cc: Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call John, I have scheduled the meeting, thanks! I must admit I am confused though, because Diane Jordan scheduled a meeting for the exact same time for us to work with linking use-cases and issues/requirements. Please see attached email. I looked in the calendar in the use cases sub-group and there are zero entries. So I will await a clarifying email... ++Harvey -----Original Message----- From: jevdemon@microsoft.com [mailto:jevdemon@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:24 PM To: wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call Hello all, Thank you for your time yesterday. We will have a follow-up call Monday, 6/23 at 1 PM PT to discuss the following: 1) Follow up on action items assigned (see below). 2) Plan for presentation of the Use Case process to the rest of the TC Call numbers and passcodes remain the same: Start time: 1 PM PT, 4 PM ET Toll-Free (US & Canada): 866-500-6738 Toll: 203-480-8000 Participant Passcode: 600345 I have included below a brief review of yesterday's call below. Please respond with any questions or concerns you may have. Template discussion: "expected outcome" should be renamed "Purpose" Description should discuss expected impact on the spec We need semi-structured section to describe use cases We need to incorporate architectural diagrams into the descriptions review the Web Services Architecture WG's sample use case form (forwarded to the group by Yin-Leng) we should put each use case on a separate page with links to navigate from one page to another The use case description section should be semi-structured, ensuring that the descriptions follow a common layout - this will make it easier to communicate use cases to the TC (Ben Bloch send some ideas out about this on 6/12) General discussion: Use cases will raise new requirements and/or issues Each requirement should be tied back to a use case George Brown has done some interesting work with the Supply Chain Council's SCOR model that may be relevant to the TC Use Case vs. Requirement: A use case tells the story/scenario, while a requirement should be short/crisp & state how a problem should be solved We discussed, and seemed to agree upon, a five step process: Collect use cases from within and by soliciting external groups to build up the "Proposed" section Describe the use case in detail using the template. Each use case will be documented using the template by an owner/sponsor (presumably someone from this group, possibly another TC member). The owner is responsible for initially promoting the use case to the rest of the TC via the mailing list (brief description with a link to the template). The owner is also responsible for discussing and making a motion to vote on the use case at a TC conf call or F2F (see next step). The TC then votes on whether a use case should be included or rejected. If a use case is rejected, the owner assigns the appropriate status to it and ensures the description of the use case is moved to a "for possible later consideration" page (accessible from links on the use case description document). If a use case is approved, the group presents a timeline to the TC for the work to be performed (the work may include others from within the TC). The group then begins working on the use case. This work will vary depending on the use case itself - some of this work may require building sample BPEL schemas while other work might require bits of code or other resources. This is a pretty broad area - there is no easy way to categorize this step because it is dictated by the use case itself. The findings/recommendations from Step 3 will be presented to the TC for consideration. As stated earlier, the exact findings/recommendations will vary depending on the use case itself. Some use cases may cause us to discover new requirements/issues which the TC would vote to adopt or ignore. Other reports may simply require us to report our findings with no need for voting. Regardless of the outcome, the reporting step is critical to keeping everyone informed. If a use case generated new issues/requirements, the group will document these and submit them to Jeff's team. The owner of the associated use case is responsible for ensuring the use case description is moved to a "Completed" section of the Use Case document (accessible via links from the main page). Please let me know if you need more details on the 5 step process and I will do my best to provide them - I would also love to have some help from anyone interested in helping to document this process. We ended the call with the following action items: Ben will provide some ideas (via email) for the semi-structured sections of the use case descriptions. This may be a follow-up to his 6/12 email). Sally St. Amand volunteered to document the voting process (step 2) Tony and Yin-Leng volunteered to write up some ideas about working with Jeff's team to coordinate use cases and requirements/issues. George offered to contribute some ideas around the terms and semantics associated with each step in the process described above. Yin-Leng expressed a concern about knowing which parts of the spec have been exercised by a given use case. We left this as an optional action item for her - if she has some specific ideas about how this issue can be addressed please share them with the group. Again, please respond if you have any questions. JohnE ----- Message from Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:14:08 -0400 ----- To: bpel usecase <wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org>, Dieter Roller <ROL@de.ibm.com>, ganesh.vednere@cgey.com, gloria.vargas@reuters.com, "Ryan Cairns [Openstorm]" <ryan@openstorm.com>, gritzinger@novell.com, Rand Anderson <randerson@macgregor.com>, david.burdett@commerceone.com, bmalhi@microsoft.com Subject: [wsbpel-uc] RE: From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements back to use cases Sorry, I meant to suggest Monday June 23, 4 pm eastern. Regards, Diane IBM Dynamic e-business Technologies drj@us.ibm.com (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123 ----- Forwarded by Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 06/18/2003 12:02 PM ----- "Ryan Cairns [Openstorm]" <ryan@openstorm.com> 06/18/2003 11:43 AM To: Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS cc: Subject: RE: From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements back to use cases That time works for me, what is the proposed date (Today?)? Thanks, -Ryan _____ From: Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:35 AM To: Husband, Yin-Leng Cc: Ben Bloch; George Brown; Harvey Reed; Jeff Mischkinsky; John Evdemon; Furniss, Peter; randerson@macgregor.com; david.burdett@commerceone.com; Ryan Cairns [Openstorm]; peter.furniss@choreology.com; bmalhi@microsoft.com; sumeet.malhotra@unisys.com; gritzinger@novell.com; rol@de.ibm.com; gloria.vargas@reuters.com; ganesh.vednere@cgey.com"Rajesh Manglani"; sallystamand@yahoo.com; sazi@bea.com; Fletcher, Tony; wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org; Yaron Y. Goland; Husband, Yin-Leng Am resending to include all the folks who've expressed interest in the issues/requirements process. I'd like to have a call on the issues/requirements process - I think the best timing to keep us within reasonable hours for all time zones is 4pm eastern - let me know if you can participate. Thanks. Regards, Diane IBM Dynamic e-business Technologies drj@us.ibm.com (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123 "Husband, Yin-Leng" <yin-leng.husband@hp.com> 06/18/2003 08:16 AM To: "Husband, Yin-Leng" <yin-leng.husband@hp.com>, "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>, "Dieter Roller" <ROL@de.ibm.com>, "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> cc: Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org>, "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com>, "Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>, "Ben Bloch" <ben_b54@hotmail.com>, "Harvey Reed" <hreed@sonicsoftware.com>, "George Brown" <george.w.brown@intel.com>, "Rajesh Manglani" <rmanglani@uc-council.org>, <sazi@bea.com>, <sallystamand@yahoo.com> Subject: From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements back to use cases Hi Jeff & the Issues and Requirements sub-group, Also from the Use Case sub-group telcon, I took an action to liaise with your group regarding synchronising the process of collecting requirements. In the telcon, I pointed out that the example use case looked more like a requirement description to me. The group discussed that the purpose of collecting use cases is to harvest requirements so our group would be processing use case submissions and turning them into requirements for accepted instances. So we either need to have a common requirements collection process for both groups, or have only one group handle requirements collection but formulate how and which group derive requirements from use cases. There may be an additional need to define what constitues a use case submission, and what constitues a requirements submission. Jeff, is it easier for us to have a call to discuss? Yin Leng -----Original Message----- From: Fletcher, Tony [mailto:Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com] Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2003 8:33 PM To: Jeff Mischkinsky; Yaron Y. Goland; Dieter Roller; Furniss, Peter Cc: Diane Jordan; wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org; John Evdemon; Ben Bloch; Harvey Reed; George Brown; Rajesh Manglani; sazi@bea.com; sallystamand@yahoo.com; Husband, Yin-Leng Subject: From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements back to use cases Dear Jeff - and others on the WSBPEL Requirements and Issues sub-groups, Firstly, this message probably has not gone to all the members of the Requirements and Issues sub-groups - Jeff could you pass on if necessary. Secondly - for information - a Use case sub-group mailing list has now been set up. Members of the Use case sub-group should receive this mail twice, once directly and once via this new list. If it works we can just use the list in future for mails to the Use case sub-group. The WSBPEL Use case sub-group had its first Telecon yesterday under the chairmanship of John (Evdemon). I had an action to write this mail to the Issues and Requirements sub-groups. I made the point that Use cases may well (/should) give rise to one, or more, issues and / or requirements (where we understand that an issue is a potential 'problem' that has been raised that the TC has not yet resolved whether to tackle and if so how to tackle - resolved issues will include this determination, whereas a requirement, when agreed, is something the TC has agreed needs to be addressed somehow in the specification. Likewise, each issue and requirement should be supported by one, or more, use cases. We therefore see a need for linking use cases to issues and requirements, and vice versa. We hope you will agree with this. You should receive other messages from the use case group on the procedures we currently intend to use. We would like to correlate these with your procedures, particularly so we can work out the cross linking at the appropriate juncture. Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Cohesions 1.0 (TM) Business transaction management software for application coordination Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]