[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Re: 1st Candidate examples of deliverables
Hi Harvey, Hi Sid, et al,
Not sure if this is precisely what Sid was after, but I was going to make a similar suggestion. The idea would be to not so much ignore WSDL completely, but rather just decouple items 3-7 from 1-2 fairly explicitly in the organization of our artifacts. This is beneficial as it allows easier re-use of existing non-WSDL-specific requirements use cases, and also lets business analysts who don't know or care about WSDL (or any technology specific mappings) interact with our artifacts without getting pulled into tech-specific issues, etc.
I think that this is a theme that Sally was after earlier as well.
So the idea would be to have the first artifact - have we solidified on what we are calling it? Use Case? Usage Scenario? something else? - focus on just the first two elements that you list below, Harvey. Let me interject at this point that I would propose calling these two elements 'Actors' (was 'Entities') and 'Services' (was 'Actors'). [I'll follow-up separately on this, worth a separate thread, I know there are some concerns about adopting particular vocabs, etc]. So the starting point for any requirements statement is a description of the use expressed in terms of actors consuming/using services.
Then, the additional artifacts (3-7 and maybe more) would be developed and associated with the requirements statement.