[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Sally's Action Item
I also agree that we need to tap multiple resources for ideas and examples, not just Simpl-eb. That point has been made and stressed by many people.
I also remain puzzled as to why you give a system analyst definition of “use case”. The nouns and verbs that comprise “use case” depend on the object you are using. An excellent example of this is the W3C XQuery Use Cases. They are developing a language, and they are using it: http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-use-cases/ this has plenty of snippets of the XQuery language.
In our case the BPEL language describes intended orchestration of web services, and we can use a similar approach. Describe our intent (the meta info), then write it in BPEL (using the language), all of this backed up by sensible business instances, garnered from respectable sources (UCC, WS-I, etc).
Thanks for following up and providing some great references for describing a use case.
While the WS-I SCM Use Cases 1.0 document provides several use cases from a Supply Chain scenario, none of them are based upon standardized business processes (note the disclaimer in the document and at http://www.ws-i.org/Documents.aspx#document8).
I agree that mapping our use cases back to one or more issues would be beneficial - this should not necessarily be the only option for soliciting use cases. I originally suggested starting off with Simpl-EB for the following reasons:
1) Its simple. J
a. The UCC Simpl-EB Implementation Guide makes completing this task fairly simple (for lack of a better word).
2) Simpl-EB is based upon real-world processes and is endorsed by EAN.UCC (a global supply chain/business process standards organization with over 2 million member companies)
3) We can build on it with additional use cases (once an order process is modeled we should be able to re-use it if we decide to do so)
I agree that Simpl-EB may not reflect some of the more complex scenarios discussed in the WS-I document – this doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t include fault handlers capable of catching some of the exceptions or conditions documented in the issues list.
Remember that we are interested in adopting and modeling multiple use cases – we are not finishing with Simpl-EB. I have no problem using WS-I’s supply chain scenario – I thought it would be better to start off with something easy and ramp up. I also think there may be better scenarios available (a RosettaNet PIP, for example) than the WS-I SC Use Cases.
We should start actively identifying and submitting additional candidates to the mailing list for future discussion. Would you like to add the WS-I SCM Use Cases?
Thanks again for following-up on your action item!