Title: Message
Hi
Harvey, Hi Sid, et al,
Not
sure if this is precisely what Sid was after, but I was going to make a similar
suggestion. The idea would be to not so much ignore WSDL completely, but rather
just decouple items 3-7 from 1-2 fairly explicitly in the organization
of our artifacts. This is beneficial as it allows easier re-use of existing
non-WSDL-specific requirements use cases, and also lets business analysts who
don't know or care about WSDL (or any technology specific mappings) interact
with our artifacts without getting pulled into tech-specific issues,
etc.
I
think that this is a theme that Sally was after earlier as
well.
So
the idea would be to have the first artifact - have we solidified on what we are
calling it? Use Case? Usage Scenario? something else? - focus on just the first
two elements that you list below, Harvey. Let me interject at this point that I
would propose calling these two elements 'Actors' (was 'Entities') and
'Services' (was 'Actors'). [I'll follow-up separately on this, worth a separate
thread, I know there are some concerns about adopting particular vocabs,
etc]. So the starting point for any requirements statement is a description of
the use expressed in terms of actors consuming/using
services.
Then, the additional artifacts (3-7 and maybe more) would be developed
and associated with the requirements statement.
HTH,
Rand
-----Original Message-----
From: Harvey Reed
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24,
2003 10:28 AM
To: 'Sid Askary'; 'Sally St. Amand'
Cc:
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Re: 1st
Candidate examples of deliverables
Sid,
This is as good a
place/time to discuss as any.
Considering that the
whole point of BPEL is to orchestrate operations as defined in a WSDL, I am
puzzled as to why WSDL is out of scope. However, it could be that I am
misunderstanding what you are advocating. If you can offer up a concrete
sample of use case deliverables that will help de-mystify issues. Even a rough
skeleton will add lots of value J
Is there any way to
kick out such a sample soon, so together, we can comment, critique, and
iterate to produce deliverables by this Friday?
Thanks so
much!
++Harvey
-----Original
Message-----
From: Sid Askary
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:57
PM
To: Harvey Reed; 'Sally
St. Amand'
Cc:
Subject: [wsbpel-uc] Re: 1st Candidate
examples of deliverables
Harvey,
I am working on a sample as we
speak. I would like to discuss the list that you have at some
point. For example, as per my email, I think examples are not use
cases. Therefore, schema's, WSDL, etc. are not initially in
scope.
Sid.
At 02:44 PM 9/22/2003, Harvey Reed
wrote:
Sally,
Sid,
The
proposal is to deliver candidate examples of deliverables to the UC group by
COB Friday. Lets say by 5pm ET. Per what we have discussed prior, I think the
list is:
1.
Entities with
descriptions, that own
2.
Actors (or
better name) which are web services, that expose
3.
WSDL to
describe operations that exchange messages that have
4.
Schemas, all of
this used by
5.
BPEL use case explanative text, (using
template?)with
6.
Executable
BPEL, and possibly,
7.
Abstract
BPEL
Lets also
take into account issues/concerns that Sid is writing up (please reply and
paste in), and any thoughts from Sally. Once we agree on the list of
deliverables, we can make outlines of the deliverables we can agree on, then
fill one coherent example in and submit back to the UC for comment, then the
TC for demonstrating progress.
So the
next action item is for Sid to reply with his thoughts that he is writing up,
and we can drive from there&
Harvey
Reed
Technical Product
Manager
Sonic
Software
www.SonicSoftware.com
781-999-7027
