Hi Tom, Thanks for the clarification. I created my own profile a while back but didn't know how this new profile was meant to be used. In my case, I used the profile to generate requirements, design documentation and traceability information from models.
Regards, Mark On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Mark Fortner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was playing around with the Profiles in the latest beta release, and > > wanted to be able to apply a "requirement" stereotype to a use case, but > it > > seems as though this is only possible with comments. How is this > supposed > > to work? Are you supposed to comment use cases, and then assign the > > stereotype to the comment? > > It sounds like you are talking about the <<requirement>> stereotype > from the UML 1.4 Standard Elements profile. This is actually defined > by the OMG in an appendix of the UML spec and we're just including it > for people to reference. As defined, it has Comment as its only base > class, so that's the only thing it can be applied to. There's nothing > to stop you however, from defining a <<my-requirement>> stereotype > that can be applied to different types of elements however. > > > Can you then associate the same "requirement" > > comment to any node (class, state, etc) to capture traceability? > > I'm not sure how a State could be a requirement. Although I don't > have any insight into the OMG's thought process, having a blurb of > text (ie Comment) be a requirement seems reasonable to me. I think > that people who are doing traceability stuff tend to use dependencies. > For example there's a <<trace>> stereotype which can be used with an > Abstraction dependency to show that two elements are related (say a > Class that supports a UseCase). > > > Also, there doesn't seem to be any tags associated with requirements to > > allow you to capture the requirement ID. Is there some other way of > > capturing the requirement ID? > > I'm guessing that the way they envisioned this working was to have > either the text of the requirement or the requirement ID in the > Comment and have that tagged with the <<requirement>> stereotype to > distinguish it from other types of Comments. > > The OMG tends to evolve its thinking about stuff like this over time > and some of the newer thoughts from later versions of UML (e.g. 2.1) > may be usable with the UML 1.4 structures. I don't know off the top > of my head if this is one of those areas though. > > Tom > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Mark Fortner blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/jroller/ideafactory
