I use numbering all the time when writing use cases for a project. I just
do it manually. What order? Whatever, doesn't matter. Hierarchical? Hell
no. Just a simple identifier for each one. Do you number your
requirements? Same reasons you number those is why I number use cases.
Easier reporting, easier communication. How about a risk list that traces
risks to use cases? If I just want a little spreadsheet showing that
traceability, I just put the numbers of the use cases that each risk traces
to, or I put down a list of use case numbers, and show which risks they
encompass each.
Numbering use cases can simplify reports that trace to them.
--anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dik van Leeuwen POP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:40 AM
> To: Kristian Rosenvold; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: (ROSE) Use Case Numbering: Can someone explain the
> philosophy .....?
>
>
>
> 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
> *
> **************************************************************
> ***********
>
************************************************************************
* 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
*
*************************************************************************
