Anthony,
> 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.
Requirements normally do not have a name already, so for that reason it is
good practice to number them if you want to trace to them.
However, use cases do have a name already and they reside in a context, so
that makes them uniquely identified.
Of course, when you are used to working with ID-numbers, maybe you do it all
the time for any kind of entity (do you number your classes as well?), buit
that's not my way of working. If I don't really need an ID-number I do not
use them, for they can get in the way before you know it; and of course they
do not carry as much information in them as the name of the use case.
> ..... 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.
I would prefer the names of the use cases; it gives more info to me.
>
> Numbering use cases can simplify reports that trace to them.
I would let a tool like RequisitePro do that for me. Let the tool do the
translation from the name to the number. I would simply want to relate a use
case (by name) to another kind of requirement. (In the RequisitePro tool you
will most always see the name or reqts text next to the ID-number)
This is just my way of working, Anthony. Not to pick on your way of working.
Kind regards,
Dik van Leeuwen
----- Original Message -----
From: Crain, Anthony R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kristian Rosenvold
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday 23 February 2001 02:03
Subject: RE: (ROSE) Use Case Numbering: Can someone explain the philosophy
.....?
>
>
> 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
*
*************************************************************************
