RE: [wsbpel-uc] Use Case Template

(proposed doc attached for ref, no change since yesterday)

Sally,

I agree with you that we should try to reuse as much as possible. So far, we have the following levels in the use-cases, as described in the proposed, attached doc:

The business eco-system: This is for reference, so we can tell a story. It is non-normative, and just sticks to creating a world with actors, ownership, public/private relations, business flows, etc, such as Monica has elaborated, and made a great case for. We need this level to make the actual use-cases readable.
The abstract use-cases: Tied to a (single?) business flow, and thus, the actors, we have an opportunity to specify an abstract BPEL that orchestrates services (actors). We need a template for this. Sally, you have a template in mind I think.
The executable use-cases: Perhaps several, tied to a single abstract use-case. Here the private aspects of orchestration can be expressed. We also need a template for this, and it will probably be related, but different from the template we use for abstract use-cases.

Thus we need two(2) templates for use-cases. One for abstract, one for executable use-cases. Sally, in the proposed attached doc, I took the template as you earlier put forth, and blended in aspects from Simpl-eb, and then tried to make two(2) templates. They are not perfect, and still need a lot of work done on them. Would you have the time and available energy to be able to review the two(2) templates and comment/critique what we need for abstract and executable use-cases? Your experiences working with other groups that are tackling these same problems will be invaluable!

Sally, I’m also looking forward to the work you are collecting from the BMC TC J

Thanks,

++harvey

-----Original Message-----
From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:05 PM
To: wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel-uc] Use Case Template

Hi all-

My intent to put my thoughts re the revised template was interrupted by the blackout. Fortunately I was not in NYC on Thurs; so I missed the opportunity to sleep in Bryant Park which would hve been my choice over Grand Central. But we did lose power; it came back on Fri.

I agree with Harvey's point "for every abstract use case there is one or more executable use cases" . Because we are working with "ideas" the choice of words is important to insure that we are all on the same page.

I was OK with using usage sceario for high level use cases. As we move into specifics using the term use cases is probably necessary to get a broad understanding of what we need and are trying to do. My way of describing this is illustrated in the attachment DegreesOfUseCases.

I have revised the template; see the attachment. I agree with Harvey we need to relate use cases to its business process; and I also think we should indicate what aspect of the spec we hope to focus on with the particular use case.

I am also on the BCM TC. At a con call today David Webber said there was a template for collecting use cases being developed by the UN/CEFACT TMG. He forwarded it to me along with several commentaries from different people. I will forward this material to the group later today or tomorrow. Instead of thinking of it as innundation, I prefer to think of it as sharing the wealth. I have not had the time to read it.

I will read it and see if it helps sharpens the focus on what we are trying to do.

Sally

wsbpel-uc message