[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Continuing the scenario/use case discussion
Comment#1: I forgot to mention that the Simpl-eb doc is a good effort to reuse simple use cases, and they are already Supply Chain based. I think the feeling with those, is that we should convince ourselves that BPEL can at least tackle the simple stuff, before trying to tackle the very complicated. We didn’t have time to discuss leveraging this work during the con-call. Rajeev contributed this doc, and John posted the doc in the use case area.
I posted the updated proposal, with people’s cautions and observations, to the use case doc area (version 2).
Below are points that I believe we all agreed to. However, before updating the proposal, I wanted to put this to the group for discussion in this email thread:
1. Scenarios contain technical use cases, and (I forget who) will propose a definition of both (current action item from con-call).
2. The Supply Chain metaphor is a good starting point for a set of scenarios, as long as we assure that we don’t forget the Enterprise itself.
3. Scenarios will start at the abstract process level, and continue to the executable process level. This may necessitate two related artifacts.
4. The scenarios (especially starting at the abstract process level) will provide a broad context for embedding specific technical use cases.
5. We can choose which specific technical use cases to embed. We don’t need to cover everything, however we do have the opportunity to choose use cases based on:
a. Illustrate suspected gaps, or awkwardness in the BPEL spec
b. Illustrate appropriate boundary of the BPEL spec, in terms of
ii. Interface to related spec (does this cause unintended co-dependency?)
6. The scenarios can be made vertical when we need them to be.
Let the comments, critiques, and discussions begin!