RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call

With the time, I was trying to take into consideration that the issues/requirements team has several folks from Europe.  There hasn't yet been a call for this group although there has been a good deal of progress via email so there are additional topics to discuss beyond the points of intersection with the use case process.  

Here is a modification of Harvey's proposal:  we start the  issues/requirements call at 3:30 (I've gotten responses from several folks and it seems enought will be available) and defer discussion of the use case intersections to 4 pm.  

I'll talk with John about logistics and get a note out to everyone.  

We're working on getting the issues/requirements team set up with its own subgroup so that sharing documents, etc will be easier.  I'll suggest to the folks with the "pens"  on the Issues/requirements docs that they may want to add this group to the cc list when they send them. 

BTW, I get the emails for the use case group, so you don't need to add me to the cc list.

Regards, Diane

IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

"Husband, Yin-Leng" <>

06/19/2003 10:24 PM

        

        To:        "Harvey Reed" <>, Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

        cc:        <>, <>, "Husband, Yin-Leng" <>

        Subject:        RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call 

Diane,

 

+1 to Harvey's recommendation.

Also, starting at 3:30 pm ET is 5:30 am Australia in winter.

 

Yin Leng

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Harvey Reed [mailto:] 

Sent: Friday, 20 June 2003 12:44 AM

To: 'Diane Jordan'

Cc: ; 

Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call

 

Diane,

 

<caution>

If we start at 3:30pm ET (12:30pm PT) this may run into time boundaries for Asia.

</caution>

 

<opinion>

Having a 2-part con-call would be efficient, since much of the business of the uc sub group is related to the issue/req sub group. Having the issue/req part of our con-call first will resolve dependencies for later in the call.

</opinion>

 

<recommendation>

Lead the first part of the call, by calling for the issue/req sub group to describe/review their process (by email prior to the call is best). Then we can determine the intersection points with the interest/charter of the uc sub group. Then we can describe our process (to the best of our knowledge at this point), and determine what data/artifacts are passed back and forth, and dependencies on TC voting, etc. Then we can have the rest of the call with just the uc subgroup, and resolve remaining ambiguities. 

</recommendation>

 

<reminder>

Both sub groups promised to have substantive progress to report by the next con-call to the TC

</reminder>

 

++harvey

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Diane Jordan [mailto:] 

Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:47 AM

To: Harvey Reed

Cc: ; 

Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call

 

I realized late yesterday that John and I were making plans for the same time.  I haven't heard from all the folks involved in the issues/requirements process yet, but am thinking that perhaps we can start that discussion at 3:30 and then dovetail into the use cases - and maybe cover the points of intersection in the first part of the use case time slot. 

John, what do you think? 

Regards, Diane

IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

 
Harvey Reed <> 

06/19/2003 08:17 AM 
        

        To:        ,  

        cc:         

        Subject:        RE: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call 

John,

I have scheduled the meeting, thanks!

I must admit I am confused though, because Diane Jordan scheduled a meeting

for the exact same time for us to work with linking use-cases and

issues/requirements. Please see attached email.

I looked in the calendar in the use cases sub-group and there are zero

entries. So I will await a clarifying email...

++Harvey

-----Original Message-----

From:  [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:24 PM

To: 

Subject: [wsbpel-uc] Minutes from 6/17 Use Case Conf Call

Hello all,

Thank you for your time yesterday.  We will have a follow-up call Monday,

6/23 at 1 PM PT to discuss the following:

1) Follow up on action items assigned (see below).  

2) Plan for presentation of the Use Case process to the rest of the TC 

Call numbers and passcodes remain the same:

Start time: 1 PM PT, 4 PM ET

Toll-Free (US & Canada): 866-500-6738

Toll: 203-480-8000

Participant Passcode: 600345  

I have included below a brief review of yesterday's call below.  Please

respond with any questions or concerns you may have.

Template discussion:

"expected outcome" should be renamed "Purpose"

Description should discuss expected impact on the spec

We need semi-structured section to describe use cases

We need to incorporate architectural diagrams into the descriptions

review the Web Services Architecture WG's sample use case form (forwarded to

the group by Yin-Leng)

we should put each use case on a separate page with links to navigate from

one page to another

The use case description section should be semi-structured, ensuring that

the descriptions follow a common layout - this will make it easier to

communicate use cases to the TC (Ben Bloch send some ideas out about this on

6/12)

General discussion:

Use cases will raise new requirements and/or issues

Each requirement should be tied back to a use case

George Brown has done some interesting work with the Supply Chain Council's

SCOR model that may be relevant to the TC

Use Case vs. Requirement:

A use case tells the story/scenario, while a requirement should be

short/crisp & state how a problem should be solved 

We discussed, and seemed to agree upon, a five step process:

Collect use cases from within and by soliciting external groups to build up

the "Proposed" section

Describe the use case in detail using the template.  Each use case will be

documented using the template by an owner/sponsor (presumably someone from

this group, possibly another TC member).  The owner is responsible for

initially promoting the use case to the rest of the TC via the mailing list

(brief description with a link to the template).  The owner is also

responsible for discussing and making a motion to vote on the use case at a

TC conf call or F2F (see next step).  The TC then votes on whether a use

case should be included or rejected.

If a use case is rejected, the owner assigns the appropriate status to it

and ensures the description of the use case is moved to a "for possible

later consideration" page (accessible from links on the use case description

document).  If a use case is approved, the group presents a timeline to the

TC for the work to be performed (the work may include others from within the

TC).  The group then begins working on the use case.  This work will vary

depending on the use case itself - some of this work may require building

sample BPEL schemas while other work might require bits of code or other

resources.  This is a pretty broad area - there is no easy way to categorize

this step because it is dictated by the use case itself.

The findings/recommendations from Step 3 will be presented to the TC for

consideration.  As stated earlier, the exact findings/recommendations will

vary depending on the use case itself.  Some use cases may cause us to

discover new requirements/issues which the TC would vote to adopt or ignore.

Other reports may simply require us to report our findings with no need for

voting.  Regardless of the outcome, the reporting step is critical to

keeping everyone informed.

If a use case generated new issues/requirements, the group will document

these and submit them to Jeff's team.  The owner of the associated use case

is responsible for ensuring the use case description is moved to a

"Completed" section of the Use Case document (accessible via links from the

main page).

Please let me know if you need more details on the 5 step process and I will

do my best to provide them - I would also love to have some help from anyone

interested in helping to document this process.  

We ended the call with the following action items:

Ben will provide some ideas (via email) for the semi-structured sections of

the use case descriptions.  This may be a follow-up to his 6/12 email).

Sally St. Amand volunteered to document the voting process (step 2)

Tony and Yin-Leng volunteered to write up some ideas about working with

Jeff's team to coordinate use cases and requirements/issues.

George offered to contribute some ideas around the terms and semantics

associated with each step in the process described above.

Yin-Leng expressed a concern about knowing which parts of the spec have been

exercised by a given use case.  We left this as an optional action item for

her - if she has some specific ideas about how this issue can be addressed

please share them with the group.

                

Again, please respond if you have any questions.

JohnE

----- Message from Diane Jordan <> on Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:14:08 -0400 ----- 

To: 
bpel usecase <>, Dieter Roller <>, , , "Ryan Cairns [Openstorm]" <>, , Rand Anderson <>, ,  

Subject: 
[wsbpel-uc] RE: From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements back to use cases

Sorry, I meant to suggest Monday June 23, 4 pm eastern.   

Regards, Diane

IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

----- Forwarded by Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 06/18/2003 12:02 PM ----- 

 
"Ryan Cairns [Openstorm]" <> 

06/18/2003 11:43 AM 
        

       To:        Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 

       cc:         

       Subject:        RE: From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements back to use cases 

That time works for me, what is the proposed date (Today?)? 

 

Thanks, 

-Ryan 

 

From: Diane Jordan [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:35 AM

To: Husband, Yin-Leng

Cc: Ben Bloch; George Brown; Harvey Reed; Jeff Mischkinsky; John Evdemon; Furniss, Peter; ; ; Ryan Cairns [Openstorm]; ; ; ; ; ; ; "Rajesh Manglani"; ; ; Fletcher, Tony; ; Yaron Y. Goland; Husband, Yin-Leng 

 

Am resending to include all the folks who've expressed interest in the issues/requirements process. 

I'd like to have a call on the issues/requirements process -  I think the best timing to keep us within reasonable hours for all time zones is 4pm eastern - let me know if you can participate.   

Thanks. 

Regards, Diane

IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

  
"Husband, Yin-Leng" <> 

06/18/2003 08:16 AM 
        

      To:        "Husband, Yin-Leng" <>, "Jeff Mischkinsky" <>, "Yaron Y. Goland" <>, "Dieter Roller" <>, "Furniss, Peter" <> 

      cc:        Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <>, "John Evdemon" <>, "Fletcher, Tony" <>, "Ben Bloch" <>, "Harvey Reed" <>, "George Brown" <>, "Rajesh Manglani" <>, <>, <> 

      Subject:        From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements back to use cases 

Hi Jeff & the Issues and Requirements sub-group,

Also from the Use Case sub-group telcon, I took an action to liaise with

your group regarding synchronising the process of collecting

requirements.

In the telcon, I pointed out that the example use case looked more like

a requirement description to me.  The group discussed that the purpose

of collecting use cases is to harvest requirements so our group would be

processing use case submissions and turning them into requirements for

accepted instances.

So we either need to have a common requirements collection process for

both groups, or have only one group handle requirements collection but

formulate how and which group derive requirements from use cases.

There may be an additional need to define what constitues a use case

submission, and what constitues a requirements submission.

Jeff, is it easier for us to have a call to discuss?

Yin Leng

-----Original Message-----

From: Fletcher, Tony [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2003 8:33 PM

To: Jeff Mischkinsky; Yaron Y. Goland; Dieter Roller; Furniss, Peter 

Cc: Diane Jordan; ; John Evdemon; Ben

Bloch; Harvey Reed; George Brown; Rajesh Manglani; ;

; Husband, Yin-Leng

Subject: From Use Case sub-group - Linking of Issues and Requirements

back to use cases

Dear Jeff - and others on the WSBPEL Requirements and Issues sub-groups,

Firstly, this message probably has not gone to all the members of the

Requirements and Issues sub-groups - Jeff could you pass on if

necessary.

Secondly - for information - a Use case sub-group mailing list has now

been set up.  Members of the Use case sub-group should receive this mail

twice, once directly and once via this new list.  If it works we can

just use the list in future for mails to the Use case sub-group. 

The WSBPEL Use case sub-group had its first Telecon yesterday under the

chairmanship of John (Evdemon).  I had an action to write this mail to

the Issues and Requirements sub-groups.

I made the point that Use cases may well (/should) give rise to one, or

more, issues and / or requirements (where we understand that an issue is

a potential 'problem' that has been raised that the TC has not yet

resolved whether to tackle and if so how to tackle - resolved issues

will include this determination, whereas a requirement, when agreed, is

something the TC has agreed needs to be addressed somehow in the

specification.

Likewise, each issue and requirement should be supported by one, or

more, use cases.

We therefore see a need for linking use cases to issues and

requirements, and vice versa.  We hope you will agree with this.

You should receive other messages from the use case group on the

procedures we currently intend to use.  We would like to correlate these

with your procedures, particularly so we can work out the cross linking

at the appropriate juncture.

Best Regards     Tony

A M Fletcher

Cohesions 1.0 (TM)

Business transaction management software for application coordination

Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0)

7801 948219 

     (Home: )