Hello: Ok, I have another question that is related to this... In an included use case, how do you know what actors from the including use case play what roles in the included use case? For instance, an included use case called Login might say, "The system user enters authentication information". If there were more than two actors in the including use case how do you specify which actor does what things in the included use case? Login is probably too simple of an example to be useful, but I hope you understand my point. The way I have been handling it, was to say in the including use case what role from that use case maps to what role in the included use case. For example, lets say there is a use case called "Run Payroll" that the "Clinic Administrator" does. I would say something like Perform the "Login" use case with the "Clinic Administrator" playing the role of "System User". In this way, you could think of the included use case as a template function with parameterized roles. Extending and generalized use cases do not have this problem since they have visibility back to the 'base' use case. Comments? Sincerely, James. -----Original Message----- From: Williamson, Rusty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 4:57 PM To: 'Aker, Eric'; Williamson, Rusty; 'Rose Forum' Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML question number one --found RUP's answer... Eric, Please keep us all informed of anything on this that you find. Thanks! Rusty --------------------------------------------------------------- Rusty Williamson Sr. Systems Architect Corporate Office GERS, Inc. 10431 Wateridge Circle * San Diego, CA 92121 (800) 854-2263 * CA (858) 457-3888 FAX (858) 484-9237 * Desk (858) 484-9237 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Web http://www.gers.com "e-Business Solutions for the Consumer-Driven World" -----Original Message----- From: Aker, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:13 PM To: 'Williamson, Rusty'; Aker, Eric; 'Rose Forum' Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML question number one --found RUP's answer... OH YEAH, I have heard of that ;-) But I have never used one. All of my Use Cases do attach to actors or are extended/included from a Use Case that is. When you extend/include a use case then almost by definition the exending/including use case is NOT complete and can NOT stand by itself. If a use case is including another use case then it also is not complete. HHmmm... interesting. I think I will go read some more on this. Thanks for the pointer. Eric -----Original Message----- From: Williamson, Rusty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'Aker, Eric'; 'Rose Forum' Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML question number one --found RUP's answer... Eric, Original question: Does anyone know if there is any kind of requirement that use cases in extent and include relationships must always be abstract use cases? You teach a Rational OOA&D class and you do not know what an abstract use case is? I don't know what to say to that. An abstract use case is one that is not complete - can not stand by itself and can not be connected to an actor (versus a concrete use case which is always connected to an actor). This definition (I paraphrased of course) can be found in the OMG UML Spec, all of the 3-A's books on UML and UP as well as just about every use case book I've read. I'm sure your going to shake your head and go 'oh yeah...'. Anyway I found the answer to my question... I guess. Interestingly I searched the OMG specification and also the 3-A's UML Reference and User Guide and could not find anything on my particular question. Maybe I just missed it. Also, so far, replies from the industry (this forum, newsgroups, cafes) all say 'unknown' or 'not that I know of'. However, in the RUP eCoach (i.e. the web pages that describe RUP), in the sections on: * Guidelines: Include Relationship * Guidelines: Extend Relationship It states that: * Included use cases are 'always' abstract * Extended use cases 'may be' abstract Hmm... is that really the 'standard'? I guess that it makes sense based on the strict definitions (although it's going to change some of what we've done). Live and learn... Thanks! Rusty --------------------------------------------------------------- Rusty Williamson Sr. Systems Architect Corporate Office GERS, Inc. 10431 Wateridge Circle * San Diego, CA 92121 (800) 854-2263 * CA (858) 457-3888 FAX (858) 484-9237 * Desk (858) 484-9237 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Web http://www.gers.com "e-Business Solutions for the Consumer-Driven World" -----Original Message----- From: Aker, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:00 AM To: 'Williamson, Rusty'; 'Rose Forum' Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML question number one No there is not. What is a "abstract use case"? I know what an abstract class is. Eric Aker -----Original Message----- From: Williamson, Rusty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:14 AM To: 'Rose Forum' Subject: (ROSE) UML question number one Hello, Does anyone know if there is any kind of requirement that use cases in extent and include relationships must always be abstract use cases? Thanks! Rusty --------------------------------------------------------------- Rusty Williamson Sr. Systems Architect Corporate Office GERS, Inc. 10431 Wateridge Circle * San Diego, CA 92121 (800) 854-2263 * CA (858) 457-3888 FAX (858) 484-9237 * Desk (858) 484-9237 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Web http://www.gers.com "e-Business Solutions for the Consumer-Driven World" ************************************************************************ * 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 * ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ * 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 * *************************************************************************
