MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
wsia message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Fwd: [wsia] RE: Questions regarding embedded and customized-integrateduse ca ses
Title: Fwd: [wsia] RE: Questions regarding embedded and
custo
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:45:32 -0800
To: Graeme Riddell <griddell@bowstreet.com>
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Subject: [wsia] RE: Questions regarding embedded and
customized-integrated use
cases
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
I guess where I'm losing track of strict
definitions is in what constitutes a modification. I had thought of
embedded as a use-case where the portal takes the data and/or textual
information as is, and inserts or embeds it directly into an available
display widget/slot in the portal without need for change of any
kind.
I'm not sure where the discussion of look
and feel came from with regard to this. I was seeing this as data and
text without presentation parameters. I thought that the WSIA Producer
in this case doesn't have to bother with that stuff, just shoots the
info down the pipe. And, likewise the Producer just produces what is
asked for, via the request context info presented by the Consumer on
behalf of the End User.
Of course, I assumed that the lookup
portion of the request sequence (UDDI or an added supplementary WSIA
repository function added to that lookup) takes care of specifying
what packages of info/data can be served up by a given WSIA Producer,
so that this was not a case of asking for customized portlet packages,
just choosing from available packages.
That what I thought. The only reference
to display in Rich's use-case is the last bullet of 3.1.1 "*
Markup type configured by the Consumer at page load time based on
End-User profile or device type in use by End-User."
I know we talked about it briefly in the
meeting, and I just checked the minutes. What I got from the meeting
was the idea is that while the issue of look and feel, like
republishing and permissions/rights as part of a contract or WSLA
(License Agreement?), is orthogonal to all use cases, it is dealt with
more precisely within the Customized Use Case.
So I guess I agree.
I vote yes to line numbers and a standard
Number for Requirements. Rich's Embedded Use Case is the only one that
included it as Number 7. That's also fine with me.
That seems to be a great answer - so WSRP
might actually span both Embedded
and Customized, and for the purpose of that committee might "own"
some
"low-end" Customized functionality and drill down on that,
and rely on WSIA
for the LCD Embedded. WSIA would then also own "higher-end"
Customized
functionality that WSRP would be less concerned about?
-gr