Continuing the scenario/use case discussion

All,

 

I posted the updated proposal, with people’s cautions
and observations, to the use case doc area (version 2).

 

Below are points that I believe we all agreed to. However,
before updating the proposal, I wanted to put this to the group for discussion
in this email thread:

 

 
Scenarios contain technical use cases, and (I forget
     who) will propose a definition of both (current action item from con-call).

 
The Supply Chain metaphor is a good starting point for
     a set of scenarios, as long as we assure that we don’t forget the Enterprise
     itself.

 
Scenarios will start at the abstract process level, and
     continue to the executable process level. This may necessitate two related
     artifacts.

 
The scenarios (especially starting at the abstract
     process level) will provide a broad context for embedding specific
     technical use cases.

 
We can choose which specific technical use cases to
     embed. We don’t need to cover everything, however we do have the
     opportunity to choose use cases based on:

 
  
Illustrate suspected gaps, or awkwardness in the BPEL spec

  
Illustrate appropriate boundary of the BPEL spec, in
      terms of

 

                                                              
i.     
Capability

                                                            
ii.     
Interface to related spec (does this cause unintended
co-dependency?)

 
The scenarios can be made vertical when we need them to
     be.

 

Let the comments, critiques, and discussions begin!

 

++Harvey