Re: [egov] Proposed Use Case template

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for these valuable suggestions Tim. Some questions and comments 
below...

Tim Benson wrote:

> A useful use case template. I have several minor suggestions, which, 
> if accepted in full, would add one extra heading, merge four and make 
> minor changes to three others:
>
> (a) Add a heading “Scope, Goal and Context”. This might replace or 
> supplement the present “Description”, as well as “Exceptions”, 
> “Special Requirements” and “Assumptions” (all of which are somewhat 
> ambiguous terms, liable to be used in different ways by different authors)

I find Description as more general and descriptive than “Scope, Goal and 
Context”. It is also more universally used in practice. What do others 
think?

Exceptions are very distinct and important a section. It is to list what 
can be some out-of-the-ordinary paths or outcomes within the use case.
For example a use case to register a new student in a course may have an 
identified exception that the student has not paid their fees and 
therefor will
not be registered.

I agree that “Special Requirements” and “Assumptions” are ambiguous. 
Maybe they can be combined into one title: “Special Requirements” and 
“Assumptions”?

> (b) Suggest adding Cockburn’s classification of “High level”, “User 
> goal” and “Sub-function” to categorise use cases into those which can 
> be met using more than one “user session”, one “user session” or a 
> small part of a “user session” respectively.

I am not clear on above suggestion. On a net search I found:

http://www.dotnetcoders.com/web/learning/uml/diagrams/usecase.aspx

But that does not explain what you meant. Can you post a link?

> (c) Explicitly identify the primary actor to whom the use case 
> provides value, or initiates the use case - perhaps add a phrase 
> “(list primary actor first)”.

Excellent suggestion. Will add this phrase.

> (d) Change “Pre-conditions” to “Pre-conditions and Triggers” - it is 
> often useful to identify a specific trigger event especially in 
> interoperability.

Good suggestions. Will do.

> (e) Change “Priority” to “Priority and Frequency of Occurrence” - 
> these are two different dimensions.

Priority is meant to be simple Low, Medium, Hi distinction. There are 
many factors that may decide on priority besides frequency of occurance.
Do you think we should list "Frequency of Occurrence" as a separate title?

I will send a revised template for use cases based on what we agree upon 
in the discussion on this thread later this week. Team please share your 
thoughts.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh