That is correct.
Todd Dunnavant
Rational Software Corporation
Technical Lead, Texas/Oklahoma Geographic District
voice: 281-499-8789
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Pankaj Chatterjee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:31 AM
To: 'ROSE_FORUM'
Subject: RE: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
Hi Todd,
>From your reply, it seems that the Included use cases represent a use case
not directly initiated by the user and their main purpose is to group
certain functionality common to a group of primary use cases. Is this
correct?
Pankaj
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dunnavant, Todd
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:11 PM
> To: 'ROSE_FORUM'
> Subject: RE: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
>
>
>
> An included use case is not the same as a pre-condition. Think of an
> inclusion as a "reusable use case subroutine" that can be plugged in
> as-appropriate to other use cases. Inclusions normally are
> discovered after
> a number of use cases have been created and some use case
> sections have been
> discovered that can be factored out and maintained once, rather than
> maintained within all the other use cases.
>
> Todd Dunnavant
> Rational Software Corporation
> Technical Lead, Texas/Oklahoma Geographic District
> voice: 281-499-8789
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pankaj Chatterjee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:07 AM
> To: 'Eric D. Tarkington'; 'Quatrani, Terry'; 'ROSE_FORUM'
> Subject: RE: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Could you folks please give me some clarification on the
> relation ships. Why
> do we need a Include relation? When we document a use case,
> we can be put a
> pre or a post conditions. If these pre/post conditions refer
> to individual
> use cases, it would mean that a specific use case needs to be
> done before or
> after the current use case.
> Is there a difference between depicting the association via
> documentation
> and that done visually?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pankaj
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric D.
> Tarkington
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:43 AM
> > To: Quatrani, Terry; ROSE_FORUM
> > Subject: Re: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
> >
> >
> >
> > Terry,
> >
> > First of all, I'm thrilled that my favorite writer on the
> UML actually
> > replied to Bar Bet #2. I was just at the point of deciding it was a
> > dud, and trying again to stir some controversy. I'm
> > forwarding the mail
> > to my mother -- see, Ma, somebody important answered me!
> >
> > Technically, there is one standard (OMG) answer, and the latest Rose
> > supports it: we should stop using <<uses>> & <<extends>>,
> > and we should
> > use <<include>> and <<extend>> with a dependency relationship. The
> > discussion probably failed to heat up because people have
> > long ago given
> > up on using these stereotypes "properly", anyway. I *have* used
> > unidirectional association, at least partly because we
> > haven't upgraded
> > from Rose 98 yet.
> >
> > The thing that bugs me most is that unidirectional association with
> > these stereotypes actually makes more sense to me than dependency.
> > Clearly, the base use case will not be "compiled" before
> > "linking" with
> > the extending use case (because we don't compile use cases,
> > at least for
> > now). On the other hand, association implies messaging, and
> > it seems to
> > me that, if you can bundle up behaviour into use cases, the
> > bundles can
> > send messages to each other.
> >
> > In the end, standards and common usage will trump other
> > considerations.
> > I accept that. I've been telling people for years that I
> > plan to become
> > famous by promulgating "Tarkington's Principle", which says: "It's
> > better that it be standard than that it be good." That's a very
> > perverse idea to software types, who are nitpicking
> perfectionists by
> > nature, but it's amazing how often it applies. Call it
> "Tarkington's
> > Perverse Principle", if you like. For me, it applies here.
> >
> > It's quite clear that dependency is the standard relationship to use
> > with <<include>> and <<extend>> in use case diagrams,
> therefore that's
> > the better answer until standards change. It still doesn't
> > strike me as
> > a good answer, though.
> >
> > I'm looking forward to your next version of Visual Modeling with RR,
> > though I don't expect you to explain why dependency is
> intuitively the
> > right relationship in a basic introductory book on the UML.
> >
> > But, it would be very nice if one of the philosophers or angels at
> > Rational Corp. has written this up somewhere. Please,
> somebody, just
> > give me a sense of the word "dependency" that makes sense in this
> > context. Bend me, shape me.
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> > "Quatrani, Terry" wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric,
> > > Now you can see how hard it is to write a book when
> > things keep changing.
> > > In the earlier versions of UML (and Rose) the relationships
> > between use
> > > cases were uses and extends and I think the notation was indeed a
> > > generalization arrow. In later (and the current) version
> > of UML, the words
> > > changed to include and extend and the notation was a
> > stereotyped dependency.
> > > But Rational Rose did not support that (so I used a stereotyped
> > > association). Now, Rose does support a stereotyped
> > dependency between use
> > > cases. So the correct answer is "there are two different
> > relationships
> > > between use cases. They are include and extend. Both
> > relationships are
> > > stereotyped dependencies. For an include relationship, the
> > dependency
> > > points from the use case doing the using to the used use
> > case. For an
> > > extend relationship, the dependency points from the
> > extension use case to
> > > the base use case (the use case being extended". These
> > relationships will
> > > be update in the next version of my book (which I am
> > starting to write).
> > > Hope this helps.
> > > TQ
> > >
> > > Terry Quatrani
> > > Rose Evangelist
> > >
> > > Phone: 610-940-2132
> > > Cell: 610-659-8272
> > > Fax: 610-940-2150
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eric D. Tarkington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:24 AM
> > > To: ROSE_FORUM
> > > Subject: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
> > >
> > > It's been months since Bar Bet #1 (which I really enjoyed,
> > thanks), but
> > > I guess everyone will forgive, since we are all too busy
> for humans.
> > >
> > > Largely because I'm teaching the UML at Seneca College (School of
> > > Computer Studies), I keep on asking basic questions over
> > and over. The
> > > instructors don't agree about some basic stuff, and
> neither does the
> > > literature on the UML. We get down to the point where you
> > can't appeal
> > > to logic and you can't appeal to authority.
> > >
> > > So, here's my latest vexed question: In use case diagrams, how do
> > > association stereotypes know which way to go?
> > >
> > > In VISUAL MODELING WITH RATIONAL ROSE AND UML, (c)1998,
> p. 34, Terry
> > > Quatrani writes: "Uses and extends relationships must use
> > stereotypes
> > > because they are both represented by a generalization arrow."
> > >
> > > In VISUAL MODELING WITH RATIONAL ROSE 2000 AND UML,
> (c)2000, p. 34,
> > > Terry Quatrani writes: "Include and extend relationships must use
> > > stereotypes since they are both represented by a dependency
> > > relationship." The rest of chapter 3 contains examples that
> > > consistently use a unidirectional association
> relationship, instead.
> > >
> > > We're teaching an introduction to the UML using Rose, and
> we've been
> > > treating include/extend as identical to uses/extends. So, reading
> > > Quatrani, we get three options for which relationship "goes with"
> > > include and extend stereotypes:
> > > 1. generalization (solid line, closed arrow)
> > > 2. dependency (dashed line, open arrow)
> > > 3. unidirectional association (solid line, open arrow)
> > >
> > > Quatrani is a genuinely excellent resource, who gives a lot
> > of her kung
> > > fu along with the facts in her books. Which one of these
> options is
> > > wrong? Is more than one of them right? Are uses/extends
> > the same as
> > > include/extend? When David Duchovny comes back, will there
> > be another
> > > season of X-Files?
> > >
> > > There are actually two bar bets here. My final formulation is:
> > > 1. Uses/extends is the same as the newer include/extend.
> > > 2. Unidirectional association is the relationship to which these
> > > stereotypes should apply.
> > >
> > > As before, I won't tell what I think until the pressure becomes
> > > unbearable.
> > >
> > > -Eric
> > **************************************************************
> > **********
> > * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> > * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> > *
> > * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > * Archive of messages:
> > http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> > * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *
> > * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> > *
> > * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > * Subject:<BLANK>
> > * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> > *
> > **************************************************************
> > ***********
> >
> >
>
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
> http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> *
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject:<BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *
> **************************************************************
> ***********
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
> http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> *
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject:<BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *
> **************************************************************
> ***********
>
>
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
