RE: (ROSE) Use case flow question

[Couball, James]

Title: Use case flow question

Chang,

 

I think that you will probably get all sorts of different answers to this as there is no "proper manner" for doing use cases defined.  Life would be so much easier if there was.  Here is my thinking.

 

The principals of use cases:

I. They are meant to be a communications mechanism that all stakeholders can understand (or at least have a chance of understanding).

II. They should structure the requirements in such a way as to start development.

 

I feel that the use case descriptions and flows stated in plain english (or whatever language you use) best serves the first principal.

 

The second principal could be served by formatting the use case in to format you provided, but I wouldn't do it that way.  This kind of structure you are putting on the use cases by doing this is too detailed for the work you are doing at the time you are writing use cases.  What I have noticed is if you take on the details too soon, you thrash about in them because the higher level things keep changing.  There are later steps in most methodologies that have this essential effect (like scenario diagraming).

 

So what are the reasons that you might want to do what you are saying?  Well, I would guess if your requirements document needed to be superformal because external issues or the requirements document was going to be reused to develope many different implementations of the same system.  I don't see either as happening too often.

 

That's just my humble opinion.

 

BTW, I just hate long disclaimer messages like the kind at the end of your post.  Is there any legal precedence for these things in terms of liability?  I know I certainly (try to) ignore them.

 

Sincerely,

James.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Li, Chang En - SIN571 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 8:26 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: (ROSE) Use case flow question

Hi,

I am new to UML. My question is that is it proper manner to have multiple levels of subflows for use case? i. e.

1.3 subflows
1.3.1 subsubflows
1.3.1.1 subsubflows
....

Thanks

changen

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Electronic mail is not secure and there is a risk that messages may be corrupted in transmission. We will send you a written confirmation of this message, if you send us a specific written request for such confirmation. It is the user's responsibility to check any attachments to this e-mail for viruses before use. This message and any attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal or other professional privilege. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been sent to you by mistake. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete our e-mail.