Title: Message
Rand,
We are all still in agreement. Keep in
mind the catalog that we all worked on together, and agreed to use, is
structured so that:
(a)
The ‘objects’
that we anticipate to deliver are organized into types, from high-level
business types, down to technical xml object types. We can add better visual
separators if that will help keep things clear in the readers’ minds.
(b)
We can name ‘object
types’ whatever we want. I do not have an opinion for the name of any of
the ‘object types’. Please propose a set of names!
(c)
It is organized so that
one ‘object’ can reuse other ‘objects’. In fact reuse
was one of the primary goals of the current catalog.
The exercise we are doing this week is to create
a first set of use case deliverables. I offered that we should try to deliver
at least one of each item, and anticipate there will not be uniform emphasis on
each of the items 1-7. Indeed there will probably be a good deal of hand-waving
on some of them. The point is that we must deliver something, this week, by
Friday, in order that we have concrete deliverables to base future discussions
on.
Are you volunteering to come up with a
draft of deliverables that we need for items #1&2, as well as a naming
proposal?
Cheers!
++harvey
-----Original Message-----
From: Rand Anderson
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24,
2003 11:09 AM
To: 'Harvey Reed'; 'Sid Askary';
'Sally St. Amand'
Cc:
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Re: 1st
Candidate examples of deliverables
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
