Hi Steve, Steven Newhouse wrote:
[...] Generally, having scenarios in the current version of the document using specs that are not developing and/or not going to be adopted is a concern to me. There is IMHO a clear benefit in having these sequence diagrams to inform other groups & incorporate their thinking into a single cohesive document. This should be one of our principals for future versions – not to expand into a massive sequence diagram repository but to keep a narrow focus on incremental scenarios in the EMS space. This would be a useful reference for many groups and help to show how the work going on in individual WGs fits together.
I agree to that. It would also actually help keeping scope creep out of the involved Working Groups. I am not a UML guy, but I was wondering whether it is possible to draw/incorporate some sort of interface boundary between the "umbrella" EPS sequence diagrams, and the sequence diagrams that clearly belong to the WGs that solve a specific problem, i.e. OGSA-DMI, OGSA-BES, OGSA-RSS (which actually covers two topics w/ interfaces - CSG and EPS). This would vice versa keep the scope of EMS to some sort of "glue" sticking all the individual parts together. Regarding your initial list of 4 topics, I would consider #2, #3 and #4 prime topics of EMS 1.0+, and #1 more of an issue for the OGSA-RSS group, which needs some man power here I guess. Cheers, Michel