Hi Rolf and Arne,
sometimes we need to model system services, such as general interface logic,
logging etc., which are not directly visible to the actors of the system and
therefore not described in use cases.
For the purpose of defining, planning and follow-up on development of such
system services, we decided to use a <<development case>> (don't know, where
we got it from). A development case is not a use case, but merely a chunk of
text, which we store in a use case documentation field in Rose. It describes
the goals of a single system service or a group of services.
During development, the development cases are treated more or less like use
cases. Thus, they may be traced to requirements, they are realised by
classes, they are scheduled (in more or less detailed versions) for certain
development iterations, and so on.
The customer normally has no need to see the development cases, since they
deal with design aspects.
HTH,
Lars Hauschultz.
-----Original Message-----
From: Styve, Arne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 9. februar 2001 09:51
To: Rolf Nergaard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: (ROSE) Do I model a system function as a Use Case
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
*
*************************************************************************
************************************************************************
* 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
*
*************************************************************************
