Brian,
Pre-UML 1.3, both <<uses>> and <<extends>> were a form of generalization.
Sounds funky, but that was what caused the confusion on how to use these use
case relationships. This definition dates back to Jacobson's OOSE (which I
know confused me).
I found the explaination of this in Chapter 10 of Advanced Use Case Modeling
very useful.
And besides... Jacobson's UP book was published 6 months before the adoption
of UML 1.3 and just five months after the adoption of UML 1.2. I don't
think that UML 1.3 was concrete enough to be included when he was writing
the text.
I guess if I had the book here (at home) I could tell for sure... I'll look
tomorrow.
Sincerely,
James.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian G. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:39 PM
To: Couball, James; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML question number one
hiho,
> I believe that Jacobson's statement about generalization is pre-UML 1.3...
UML had no use-case generalization before 1.3.
------ b
--
Brian G. Lyons
Number Six Software - Voted Rational's Best Complementary Service Provider
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209-3196
http://www.numbersix.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couball, James
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 12:34 PM
To: 'Brian G. Lyons'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML question number one
I believe that Jacobson's statement about generalization is pre-UML 1.3
which changed the definition of use-case generalization. A good discussion
about the old and new definitions can be found in Chapter 12 of Advanced Use
Case Modeling.
Sincerely,
James.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian G. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 6:44 PM
To: Williamson, Rusty; 'Rose Forum'
Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML question number one
hiho,
> Does anyone know if there is any kind of requirement that use cases in
> extent and include relationships must always be abstract use cases?
There is no actual requirement that I can find. While it would be most
common for the included use case and the extension use case to be abstract,
there is no constraint along these lines in the UML metamodel. Furthermore,
there is no such constraint with respect to use-case generalization. I
actually couldn't find a reference in the official UML 1.3 specification to
abstract use cases; it can just be inferred based on the fact that in the
underlying metamodel a UseCase is a child of Classifier which is a child of
GeneralizableElement which can be abstract.
On the other hand, the UML Reference Manual by Rumbaugh et al clearly states
"Note that the extension use case is not to be instantiated, the base use
case must be instantiated to obtain the combined base-plus-extensions
behavior" (p490).
With respect to Generalization, Jacobson makes some allusions on the topic
in The Unified Software Development Process text. He states that
"generalization is employed to simplify the work with and the understanding
of the use-case model and to reuse 'semimanufactured' use cases when putting
together complete use cases requested by customers. Such complete use cases
are called concrete use cases... The 'semimanufactured' use cases exist only
for other use cases to reuse and are known as abstract use cases" (p168).
So he is *implying* that the base use case in a generalization realization
is expected to be abstract... but I'm not sure he is saying it must always
be abstract.
Than Jacobson describes a lot of circumstances that would lead one to
believe that it is most typical that included and extension use cases are
abstract. But I can't see that he makes it mandatory.
------ b
--
Brian G. Lyons
Number Six Software - Voted Rational's Best Complementary Service Provider
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209-3196
http://www.numbersix.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Williamson, Rusty
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:14 PM
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
*
*************************************************************************
