Yes, I meant "Statement of Use" Elysa
At 09:42 PM 4/17/2008, Rex Brooks wrote:
>Thanks Lee,
>
>I'm fairly sure Elysa meant "Statement of Use"
>not "Use Cases," especially not UML Use Cases.
>
>As a side question, can you work with a Java
>Server Faces EDXL-RM application? I'm asking
>because I want to provide the application I'm
>working on (rather infrequently just now) in
>open source for other folks to adapt, extend
>and/or complete. I'm using NetBeans 6.0 as my
>IDE, and JSF is just easier and more reliable than vanilla JSP.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>At 4:50 PM -0400 4/17/08, Lee Tincher wrote:
>>Just a note - all Drafts coming in from DHS
>>through EC will have Use Cases and several
>>Scenarios attached as part of the documentation setŠŠ
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Lee
>>'There are only two ways that you can live
>>life. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The
>>other is as if everything is a miracle. I
>>believe in the latter' - Albert Einstien
>>
>>From: Elysa Jones [mailto:]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30 AM
>>To:
>>Subject: [emergency] Use Case
>>
>>TC Members,
>>
>>We would like to nail down the TC's consensus
>>on what constitutes a "Use case" in our
>>Standards. Most of you have been aware of this
>>topic but we have not nailed down a
>>position. We must do this before we can make
>>the big push to get use cases for HAVE and RM.
>>This topic came up during the EIC meeting
>>yesterday. There are several EIC members that
>>know of companies that may want to be the first
>>or one of the first to advertise such a use
>>case. We need to give them specific wording on
>>what constitutes this "use". OASIS requires
>>the statement to be in agreement with the
>>conformance clause of the specification. We as
>>a TC can cause this to be more or less
>>stringent and there are schools of thought on both.
>>Please review the two positions on the matter
>>identified below and respond to the list on
>>your preference. Although this does not
>>require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make
>>sure we have a good understanding and consensus on how we proceed.
>>
>>Position 1:
>>
>>Comply with the full element reference model -
>>required elements at a minimum. If a message
>>is sent that complies with the ERM, then you
>>can be compliant with any of the specific messages.
>>Deliver a RequestResource message and a
>>ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 messages).
>>If a vendor does either or, for purposes of
>>statement of use and getting the standard out
>>the door, this should be the minimum requirement.
>>
>>Position 2:
>>
>>Agreed with position 1
>>A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource
>>Deployment should be the minimum:
>>RequestResource >
>>ResponseToRequestResource >
>>RequisitionResource >
>>CommitResource >
>>ReleaseResource.
>>
>>The messages about the deployment, requesting
>>information, release, etc are not necessary, just the 5 listed.
>>
>>NOW - please make your comments to the list.
>>The Mst/Not SC will schedule a meeting either
>>Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to discuss. From this
>>a recommendation will be made. Respond to this
>>message too with which date and what times you would be available.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Elysa Jones
>>Chair, OASIS EM-TC
>>CTO/COO
>>Warning Systems, Inc.
>
>
>--
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-898-0670
