- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:39:26 +0100
- 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 sections. What do you think? Christian [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Managing_Inter-Organizational_Business_Policies_and_Practices_-_Original [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Managing_Inter-Organizational_Business_Policies_and_Practices [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Managing_Inter-Organizational_Business_Policies_and_Practices_-_Scenario
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:39:19 UTC