RE: (ROSE) Use Case Numbering: Can someone explain the philosophy .....?

[Angay, Huseyin (Huseyin)** CTR **]

> ----------
> From:         Kristian Rosenvold[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To:     Kristian Rosenvold
> Sent:         21 February 2001 12:50
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:      (ROSE) Use Case Numbering: Can someone explain the
> philosophy .....?
> 
> <<File: Kristian Rosenvold.vcf>>
> When modelling use cases, I usually end up giving the use cases an
> identifying number (ie: UC 10: Buy coffee).
> Some of our software processes are highly use case driven, some are not
> (project dependent). But, even if you also use Requisite Pro (Analyst
> Studio), the average project ends up with a *lot* of artefacts referencing
> those use cases. So, when you start using them in project plans,
> communication with project owners and a lot of other stuff that's not
> really
> an integral part of RUP, you need to get a firmer human-readable handle on
> your use cases. 
> 
> I know that a lot of us miss temporal/numeric/seqence ordering mechanisms
> as
> a part of Rose. There's no sequencing of diagrams, no way to tell any kind
> of story. I just don't understand why there's no provision for proper
> numbering of use cases within rose. Rose is their point of origin, and the
> numbers should start there...? I can't see Requisite Pro's numbering as
> filling the same role. I know the RoseID of the Use Case is unique, but
> *that* is from another domain, in my opinion (human readable was an
> issue...). Actually if you number your use cases in Rose, things start
> looking seriously silly in AnalystStudio....
> 
> [As a side note: It looks to me like RequisitePro has a very weak
> structural
> model of the project you're working on. The relationship with the actual
> use
> cases seems to be maintained through word-documents and other less
> structured information.]
> 
> Every time someone asks me about this, I just shrug. Sometimes I suggest
> it's because RUP is a production method and the designers weren't thinking
> about the project management universe (or all those other things that
> happen
> in real projects). Or sometimes I blame it on antiquated/outdated tool
> design.
> 
> Is there anything resembeling a sensible explanation of why use case
> numbering is not there ?
> 
> 
Two main reasons why ~I~ wouldn't include it in a CASE tool if I was
developing one:

(1) You can't please everybody. Depending on how your project is structured,
there are a million ways you can number use cases. Do you do it
hierarchically? Hierarchy based on packages or use case relationships? Or
maybe simply unique numbers for every use case? It is damnsight easier to
put in your custom properties for use case and class numbers and manage them
yourself.

(2) Integrating those numbers with other tools would be hell. And as soon as
you put them in, users would start expect to see the integration.

(3) There is no agreed way of doing use cases, let alone managing them. If
most people settle for one method, things may stabilise a little and make it
easier for the tool vendors to venture into this.


Given this, use case numbering is probably nowhere near as high a
development priority as, say, getting diagrams to print correctly or to
generate code that agrees with the latest Java standards.


Regards,
Huseyin Angay
Karabash Ltd.
www.karabash.co.uk

> Regards
> 
> Kristian Rosenvold 
> 
> ADCORE
> Digital Business Creators
> Mobile +47 982 38 056
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1236925, IM: Krosenvold
> 
>  <<Kristian Rosenvold.vcf>> 
> 
************************************************************************
* 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
*
*************************************************************************