Re: Business Requirements

[Dave Van Noord <vannoord@trans4m.com>]

We may want to start out with prose to begin with.  Unfortunately, I don't think
we will find a common tool for us to all use (unless someone can pull some strings
with Rational).  I have tried to read XMI, it is probably not the best
communication mechanism for humans.

Terry Allen wrote:

> Dave wrote:
>
> | One of the things that we may want to look at soon is a "use-case"-like
> | definition of how the repository might be accessed.  It would not
> | require that we have the message-routing definition or what the
> | repository will store resolved before we do that.
>
> and Scott wrote:
>
> | I would like to kick off a discussion on "business requirements" which is
> | our first deliverable.  We need to first compile a list of requirements that
> | a business person would want, and from there build a list of functional and
> | nonfunctional requirements of a repository.  The functional and
> | nonfunctional requirements MUST be traceable to a business requirement in
> | some form (otherwise why specify it?).
> |
> | In TMWG, we have started to develop some UML models to represent this, and
> | at this time we have some use cases started.  It is my goal to incorporate
>
> I firmly believe in starting with use cases (which I am used to calling
> "scenarios"; doesn't matter) to ground the business requirements in, so
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> The scenarios for the OASIS Regrep spec are focused on finding and
> retrieving DTDs and schemas for 1) immediate use in parsing, 2) use
> in writing conformant documents, and 3) development of other DTDs and
> schemas.  I'm sure they cover (with some modification for UML, perhaps)
> some of our scenarios, but clearly we (ebxml) have at least different and
> perhaps more general scenarios, too.  What is it that users want to do
> (or need to do whether they know it or not), and how do ebxml's scenarios
> differ?  Are our users developers or participants in a transaction,
> or both?
>
> | everything we do in this project team into the UML model.  Similar to the
> | SWIFT demonstration, I would like to generate off the model itself the XML
> | DTD or Schema to represent the interfaces to the repository.  Ideally, the
> | interfaces are abstract enough that the physical implementation ( MOF,
> | 11179, OIM, etc. ) can be interchangeable.  Dave Van Noord kicked off the
> | idea of client application adapters and provided a sample "getDTD" request.
>
> Where can I find that?
>
> FYI only, for the OASIS work we considered specifying an abstract request
> for a DTD (and other things, as listed in RFC 2483), and then specifying
> concrete instantiations of it (e.g., in HTTP), but we decided to just
> go for the jugular in order to make faster progress.  I'm happy for us
> to specify the abstract in this group, and am interested in how you
> represented it.
>
> | While I believe this is definitely one of the interfaces, I strongly believe
> | that this will fall right out of the model if we do it correctly.
> |
> | Another point is the background documents that should be used to build these
> | lists.  We need to have a means to share these documents.  In the meantime,
> | the official TMWG documents are at:
> | http://www.harbinger.com/resource/klaus/tmwg/documentlist.html
>
> Thanks for setting this up!
>
> | Particular interest to our group:
> | N093 - Report to UN/CEFACT on repository costs
> | N030R1 - Repository RFI to commercial repository vendors
>
> I don't find explicit scenarios in either.  N028 looks promising, but I
> can't download it; N027 is at a higher level, I should judge.
>
> | X12's SITG put together a document that details the anticipated workflow
> | that went into the N093 document.  I put up a temporary web site at
> | http://objectrepository.homepage.com/ that shows a high level workflow.
> | Most of this has been input into the UML model.  We are using Rational Rose
> | 98i that can generate HTML representations of the model.  The freebie web
> | site above does not support frames, so it is not available to us until we
> | move to the OASIS site.  Its in constant state of refinement, so we'll need
> | an easy way to update the site ( permissions that is ).
>
> Personally, I don't find the HTML representations of Rational Rose models
> very useful because they've been picked apart too much; I'd just as soon
> look at an XMI representation (although I know I may be alone in that
> preference!) or the picture itself.
>
> | Sample business requirements:
> | The business would like to have dynamic mapping tools that automatically
> | retrieve the most current file specification from a repository.  ( note this
> | would be broken into MANY functional requirements ).
> | The business would like to be able to map internal application semantics to
> | horizontal and vertical industry semantics.
>
> Yes, and in general I know why, but specifically, when and in what
> context does the business want to do this?  (It matters when you
> get to considering such things as how fast the process must work to
> be useful.)
>
> regards, Terry