Title: Message
Hey
Harvey,
Great - and yes, you are right, the catalog
helps maintain our focus.
Re volunteering to help, I am definitely willing - I will follow up with you tomorrow
morning.
Rand
-----Original
Message-----
From: Harvey
Reed [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:36
PM
To:
Rand
Anderson; 'Sid Askary';
'Sally
St. Amand'
Cc:
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Re: 1st
Candidate examples of deliverables
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
