Hi Rolf,
If I understand you correctly, what you are looking for is a way to model
system functions that not necessarely provides any direct services to any of
the system users (actors), but are needed for "design purposes". If this is
the case, I would leave them out of the Use-Case-View. The DoD once defined
a framework for System-development based on views (simelar to RUP/Rose) but
covering the entire system. They defiend 3 major views, each made up of
several artifacts (diagrams and documents and models). The 3 views were: OV
(Operational View), SV (System View) and TV (Technical View). The OV and SV
is pretty well covered in RUP/UML through the Use-Cases (both business and
system-use-cases), and the Use-Case realization, but the TV is not covered
directly in RUP/UML. TV describes (in C4ISR) the "rules" to conform to when
designing the system, including the SW-architecture (the layering, and
"componentification" of the system etc.), and the standards allowed to be
used for realizing any given component in this architecture. I'm getting to
my point here: There are several "architectural mechanisms" that you as a
designer are allowed to use to implement/realize functionality described by
the use-cases, like distributed compunting services (CORBA/COM etc.),
security mechanisms, internationalisation, exception handling etc. These do
not have to be modeled as use-cases.
So to get back where I started, if the startup-process and logging-process
etc. are such "architectural mechanisms", do not model them as Use-cases.
If however by logging, you mean that the system is to provide the
user(s)/actors with the ability to extract or create loggs from the system
(as part of the functionality required by the customer), you should have a
Use-Case representing this functionality. Wether this logging-functionality
is implemented as a process, a function or as a class, or even as a
DB-report, is not an issue for the Use-Case.
I appologize if I'm completely off track here, but if not; I hope this
helped you a little bit further :-)
Regards
Arne Styve
Tandberg Television ASA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf Nergaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 9:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: (ROSE) Do I model a system function as a Use Case
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> We are in the process of designing our system and during the
> process we
> have encountered some needs for some system functions. Such as process
> startup, logging, etc. Do we go back and model these in the Use Case
> view? We can argue whether such functions have business value
> to the end
> user.
> All our functions are, up to now, been modeled in Use Case view and
> corresponding Use Case Realizations.
>
> Regards
> Rolf Nergaard
>
>
>
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * 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
*
*************************************************************************
