Kristian,
It might be just a matter of taste, but I wouldn't want to see ID-numbers
related to model elements like e.g. use cases.
You do not want to have class ID's as well turn up in your documentation, do
you?
Also, in any folder structure (e.g. in the Windows Explorer) do you want to
see the ID-numbers of all files and folders? I wouldn't, and for the same
reason I wouldn't want to see ID-numbers for use cases, or classes, or
whatever.
I do understand, of course, that a tool like Rose or RequisitePro must keep
ID-numbers under the hood, and that's fine with me, but I do not need those
(or any human readable form) in any documentation, risk lists, project
schedules, etc.
I prefer the unique name that e.g. a use case has within its context.
The context of a use case could e.g. be: <system> (for a small to
medium-sized system), or <system>\<primary actor> (for a somewhat larger
system), or <system>\<area of interest> (for an even larger system maybe).
Just as a full path name (or a kind of URL for that matter) uniquely
identifies a file or a folder, you can have a unique name/path for a use
case.
I think that is much more readable than all kinds of shortcuts like
ID-numbers. Even though it minimizes space needed in an Excel sheet or
something like that.
I don't want to sound too strict, but that's just how I look at these
things.
Kind regards,
Dik van Leeuwen
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristian Rosenvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday 23 February 2001 10:40
Subject: RE: (ROSE) Use Case Numbering: Can someone explain the philosophy
.....?
>
>
> >From: Dik van Leeuwen POP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Why would you want the use cases to be ordered sequentially? In what
> order?
> >Order of creation? Order of ???
> I do not specifically want them ordered sequentially. Although I do talk
of
> sequencing of use cases in my original post, that's really me complaining
> about two things in the same posting ;)
>
> Use cases can be numbered hierarchically, sequentially, randomly or using
> names of famous french wine districts. It's really not important in terms
> of
> achieving the "human readable unique identifier" for a use case. If me and
> the people I work with were a little bit more machine-like, we could use
> the
> RoseID. But that's really not human-readable. The actual name of the use
> case "Buy coffee" is not formally precise enough: In different contexts,
it
> has a tendency to pop up in "everyday" prose in documents, and you cannot
> be
> sure you're talking about the same artefact. And versioning is also quite
> troublesome, although that's really another issue.
>
>
> >I think it's more flexible to do without any kind of sequence numbers
> >anywhere, including use cases.
> Sequencing is really all a part of the "View" aspect of modelling, so I
> quite agree with you on that. Solid human-readable identifiers are
> attributes of the actual artefact in question, and there may actually be
> cases where these could be useful for other artefacts too.
>
> >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
...
>
> Someone here has already pointed out that the intention is not automatic
> tool support. We number the use cases manually. We may start out at UC100
> for a specific role, then use UC200 for the next significant role, but
> that's just because we use a lot of role modelling. If we want to version,
> the next version may use 1.100 for new instance of the same use case.
Maybe
> we just call it 1000 or 433 instead ;) If we delete use case UC202, well
> that's no longer a part of the project, we don't reuse the label for
> something different.
>
> So what I really would want was really just an additional ID field.
> Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that, because I'd like to have them
> show up on diagrams, and work as references for other tools too.
Conceptual
> integration in a project is an important idea here. *Tools* like strings
> like 0x432ab64cd8484 as indentifiers, *people* need stuff like "2001.1.24
> Buy Coffee" OR "24 Buy Coffee".
>
> For those of you that know COM+, it's very much the same:
> *A given COM+ component has a name (use case name)
> *The same component has a globallu unique identifier (roseid)
> *The component has a version dependent and a version independent progid,
> which is a "probably-unique" identifier of the component.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kristian
************************************************************************
* 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
*
*************************************************************************
