Hi All,
Interesting problem you describe here. I understand the need for
traceability. In a project that I work on now, we hav a lot of
COM-interfaces that I want to do housekeeping on, of the type "which has
been implemented", "what has been changed when" etc., and when
implementing/realizing an interface, to which SNMP-OID or other protocoll
parameter is an interface traced etc. ? Rose can do some of this for me
(like the tracing part) but the verioning is not very well supported by Rose
due to the (to my mind hopeless) flatfile-configuration management that Rose
and Clearcase (or SourceSafe) performs. Hence I use Requisite Pro to do
housekeeping of the interfaces, and Rose for the design and realization of
the interfaces. Rose does not support synchronization to Requisite Pro for
this use (since only Use-Case <-> Requirement and Actor <-> Requirement
synchronization is supported). Hence I've ended up writing a small VB-script
to synchronize the two worlds......NOT the ideal solution.
Hence to my point (evetually): I like to differentiate between things we do
in Rose/UML as a result of "proper modelling" and things we do as workaround
to achieve some features we need. In your case Rolf, the way you have
decided to use the Use-Case to Requirement synchronization feature in the
Rational Tools is a typical example of the latter. It sounds like a good
workaround, BUT make sure it is properly documented so it's clear that the
<<development cases>> you have defined are workaround-elements, and not a
preferred modeling concept.
I agree with Jie conserning the name of the case. Since this artifact
already exsists in RUP, try to use a different one.
Regards Arne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jie Zhao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 12:16 PM
> To: 'Lars Hauschultz '; 'Rose Forum (E-mail) '
> Subject: RE: (ROSE) Do I model a system function as a Use Case
>
>
>
> Development Case is an artifact produced for customizing RUP
> process to suit
> the needs of a particular project.
>
> Probably better to use the terms like Primary Use Cases and
> Secondary Use
> Cases. The Secondary Use Cases are the use cases supporting
> the Primary Use
> Cases.
>
> Jie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Hauschultz
> To: Rose Forum (E-mail)
> Sent: 09/02/2001 11:04
> Subject: RE: (ROSE) Do I model a system function as a Use Case
>
>
> 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
> *
> **************************************************************
> **********
> *
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * 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
*
*************************************************************************
