Re: [wsbpel-uc] FollowUp on F2F

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Sally St. Amand wrote:

> John
>
> My efforts to listen in on the F2F were not particularly productive. 
> So I would appreciate it if you could begin our next use case call 
> with a summary of the use case presentation (and the verbiage 
> supporting your slides) and the reaction to the presentation.
>
> I would also like to revisit the one page template I put together. 
> While I am in full agreement with the concept of the catalogue to 
> provide the context and explanation of use cases, and to provide a 
> compendium of actual use cases. Use case commonly accepted as a 
> business process to achieve a goal.
>
> The Supply chain is not a use case. Multiple use cases make up a 
> supply chain. Because the concept of a supply chain has been 
> implemented many times there are many examples of business processes 
> that have been documented. Soliciting examples of use cases has the 
> advantage of not having to repeat work/effort and not appearing to 
> create use cases to prove an aspect of the spec. For example, Ram's 
> need for a use case to demonstrate Issue 43. (I did hear parts of the 
> discussion.)
>
mm1: I would be inclined to agree with Sally and expressed this when I 
suggested we focus on actual real-world use cases within and across 
enterprises.

> In my view simpl-eb is not a use case in that it is not delineating a 
> business activity. It is a business process whose intent is to 
> facilitate a business activity (i.e. trade). Since BPEL's objective is 
> to provide interoperability among business activities, the business 
> perspective has to be the driver. Simple-eb is a standards approach to 
> facilitate trade.
>
> The one page template proposed was intended to capture use cases from 
> the business perspective.
>
> The Description Section of the template is intended to present the use 
> case in sufficient detail to convey understanding. The items listed 
> are what may be needed to capture a good description, not a checklist. 
> Use cases from business personnel could be discouraged or 
> misunderstood with the inclusion of specific technical requirements.
>
> It will probably be necessary for someone, most likely from the 
> subgroup, to work with use case submitters to develop/define the 
> technical issues. The emphasis has to be on a real business process 
> that is a real world economic activity.
>
> Sally
>