W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [UCR] Managing Inter-Organizational Business Policies & Practices: Edited Version.

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:39:26 +0100
Message-ID: <440EDE8E.8000007@ilog.fr>
To: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, john.hall@modelsys.com, Said Tabet <stabet@comcast.net>, Donald Chapin <donald.chapin@btinternet.com>

John, Don, Said (and all),

Reading John's revised version of the use case [1] and Allen's version 
[2], I wonder if the scenario part in John's version, introduced by the 
first paragraph of Allen's, would not be the best mix.

My point is that everything in John's version before the scenario is, 
actually, requirements and design goals, whereas the real UC is the 
scenario, that illustrates all the requirements that the first part 
details and discusses (well, the UC is fictitious, actually; but you 
know what I mean :-)

Summarising part 1 of John's version as did Allen has two drawbacks, 
IMHO: it focuses on one single requirement where the scenarios 
illustrates most if not all of them; most importantly, it does not make 
the case for interchange at all (wheras the scenario does).

So, my proposal would be to use [3] in the editor's draft, instead (and 
have that version reviewed by the WG).

Notice that we are talking about the Use Cases section only: 
requirements and design goals will be detailed and discussed in later 

What do you think?


Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:39:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:37 UTC