Kristian,
Why would you want the use cases to be ordered sequentially? In what order?
Order of creation? Order of ???
I think it's more flexible to do without any kind of sequence numbers
anywhere, including use cases.
All things are changing during a project; use cases get different names, a
use case is added/inserted, etc.
Sequence numbers are always a pain. At certain moments you would want to
have a list of elements (be it use cases) listed in a certain order, but the
next day you would want to have them listed in another order, be it
alphabetically, or (primary-)actor related and then alphabetically, or ...
I think maybe the numbering of use cases comes from Alistair Cockburn??
I never spotted Ivar Jacobson do any numbering of use cases.
Regards,
Dik van Leeuwen
(R)UP/UML Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICT Groep +31-(0)570-50.48.00
Deventer, The Netherlands
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristian Rosenvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday 21 February 2001 15:07
Subject: (ROSE) Use Case Numbering: Can someone explain the philosophy
.....?
>
>
> 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 ?
>
> Regards
>
> Kristian Rosenvold
>
> ADCORE
> Digital Business Creators
> Mobile +47 982 38 056
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1236925, IM: Krosenvold
>
> <<Kristian Rosenvold.vcf>>
>
> - 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
*
*************************************************************************
