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: )
