RE: [wsia] RE: Questions regarding embedded and customized-integrateduse ca ses

[Jeff Broberg <jbroberg@silverstream.com>]

(In fact this makes me wonder if WSRP is actually aligned with Embedded or
whether it is a "low-end" version of Customized).

>>> i believe it is more aligned with Customized, but the minimal
requirement should still be Embedded, and we should try and coordinate with
WSRP so that they also have the same view on what minimal is.

:-) jcb



-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Giles [mailto:ggiles@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:55 PM
To: Wsia
Subject: [wsia] Questions regarding embedded and customized-integrated
use cases


Hi All,
In today's con-call I raised two separate but related points that need to be
discussed further. I'll start be restating the points followed by a
recommendation

1. For the embedded use case there is no mention of the modification that
can be done by the consumer, other than URL rewriting. However this
requirement seems key in the travelers check portal use case given, there
are several scenarios to consider, here are two:

- The portal (consumer) may want to modify the look and feel, e.g.. color &
logo to match conform to the site branding. This is different to the look &
feel modification mentioned in the spec which is per user
- In the travelers check use case the producer may show an email address or
phone number to contact for further info, within corporations its typical to
have a dedicated contact, and they would need to change this

Both of these could be done by the consumer, without requiring changes to
the producer and are classic stream modification requirements.

2. In the customized producer use case there are several sections e.g.
3.2.7, 3.2.9 .. that refer to consumer modification. Whilst they are
valuable and complete use case, they are not unique to the use case.
The statement in the use-case "The Customized Producer use case extends the
Embedded use case" implies that the embedded use case does not support or
require consumer modification, my previous point demonstrates this is not
true

Recommendation:
There are two potential solutions:

1. Accept the embedded use case is a subset of all use case and move the
common consumer based alternate flows to the embedded use case

2. Construct a separate document of consumer based alternate flows
(Charlie's suggestion from the con. call) and refer to the document sections
from the use case

I would tend to prefer option 2. since the embedded use case may not be a
subset of all others, but I haven't dissected the other use-cases to
validate this.


Two closing points:
- I personally find it useful to have line numbers on each document, during
our email discussions we can refer to explicit line numbers. This feature is
easy to turn on in M. word. Any votes for / against?
- Within the embedded and customized-integrated use cases the actor
'producer' is defined as "one or more WSIA web services". This is different
to our glossary definition of producer - "A business entity that hosts a Web
service or a Web site". I would vote for changing the glossary definition.

Have a good weekend
Greg


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>