Re: [UCR] Draft update for use case 8: Vocabulary Mapping for Data Integration

Hi David,

> Hi Dave,
> 
>> I've taken a stab at redrafting a version of the 8th UCR use 
>> case. This is somewhat abstracted from some real work on 
>> management systems integration with some poetic license thrown in.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Vocabularly_Mapping_f
>> or_Data_Integration
> 
> Looks great. I copied it over to the new wiki page (fixing the typo)
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Vocabulary_Mapping_for_Data_Int
> egration
> 
> and corrected the link at:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Use_Cases

Thanks.

> Do you feel the final paragraph (below) is essential to this use case?
> 
>> Finally John will write rules to look for problems such as a critical
>> business process which depends on a server whose maintenance contract
> is just
>> about to expire. When such an exception is flagged then the rules used
>> to derive the information are reported as part of the explanation,
>> each of the departments needs to see the rules
>> used to ensure they agree that the results are valid.
> 
> To me, that paragraph takes the use case beyond mere data integration
> into territory covered by existing use cases.

Good point. I was caught up in trying to define a self-contained use 
case but you are right that is duplication.

> On the other hand, without it, the problem as stated at the beginning of
> the use case isn't quite answered:
> 
> "John has been given the job of analyzing how exposed his division's
> business processes are to changes in their IT maintenance contracts."
> 
> To address this, I modified the final rule to the following:
> 
> If bp is a BusinessProcess that has a Dependency on Application app
>    and x is a Server with MaintenanceContract mc that hosts Application
> app 
>       then bp has a Dependency on mc
> 
> How does this (and the rest of the use case) sound?

That works fine for me, go with that. Thanks.

Dave

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 07:36:16 UTC