Re: [egov] Proposed Use Case template

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Ahhh, yes.

I agree that a UML use case diagram is a good way to show a use case, 
as long as those submitting the use case actually understand how it 
works since it is fairly easy to assume that a diagram is just a 
visual shortcut or mere representation, rather than a structured 
notation system, which UML is. I know that from having made that very 
error myself in bygone era, which also happens to be why I now prefer 
it since I had to study it in more depth than I might have otherwise.

I was actually jumping to the conclusion that it was a specific 
high-level use-case diagram template. It might be instructive to take 
a scenario such as I offered and show how it can be diagrammed and 
then used to generate program code for a specific kind of application 
such as generating a form for gathering information from participants 
in some program like land management in areas bordering national 
parklands to see what land-use patterns are occurring in a given 
area. It could shown how this information is then put into a formal 
report in a semi-automated way for the land management agency so that 
the overall process is easier for all to understand. Although I don't 
have time to do this myself as a separate effort per se. I am in the 
process of developing just such a model for use in a web services 
context, so I will pass it along when I get to the point where all 
the components work properly.

Ciao,
Rex

At 8:59 AM -0500 2/11/04, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>>However, the question at issue isn't the cost of the toolset or 
>>even a choice between one or another modeling language per se, 
>>although I personally prefer UML. The question is one of grounding 
>>the derivation of the use-cases. The simplified model of 
>>ontological participants Farrukh suggests is very high level and 
>>assumes a Domain Expert, Content Publisher and a Registry Group and 
>>that's fine at a high level. I'm suggesting developing lower level 
>>scenarios more appropriate to the domains for which Farrukh's model 
>>assumes a Domain Expert.
>>
>Oops! Now I understand the source the confusion surrounding this 
>thread. Please note that the actual content of the use case I 
>submitted is irrelvant.
>Only the structure is relevant to be considered by this TC for the 
>actual use cases we may discuss.
>
>To recap, I had observed that we agreed that use case were a good 
>way to focus our discusions concerning egov requirements. I 
>therefore suggested template for submitting new use cases. The 
>structure of the template is relevant, the actual content (actors 
>etc.) is not. I have not submitted any use cases for the egov TC yet 
>(only a suggested template for doing so).
>
>Hopefully this will clarify the miscommunication on my part. Thanks.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Farrukh
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>
>Subject:	[egov] Proposed Use Case template
>Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:18:40 -0500
>From:	Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
>To:	OASIS eGov list <egov@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
>
>
>Folks,
>
>We seem to agree on the value of use case identification as a tool 
>to nail down requirements. It would help
>if we all use a consistent use case template.
>
>To facilitate use case discussions, attached below is a sample use 
>case that I propose as a template for other use case discussion.
>
>Feel free to suggest improvements or ask questions.
>
>We could start by applying this template to use cases for Semantic 
>Interoperability. Thanks.
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup.php.


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request