Re: use case definition -- follow-up

On 2002.08.14 17:34 Lofton Henderson wrote:
> 
> Since Kirill (original author) agrees with the approach, that leaves 
> only the question of a volunteer...
> 
>> 2.) Will someone volunteer please to draft specific replacement text -- 
>> how to turn 0811 into 0819 from Lynne/Andrew contributions?
>> 
>>         2a) two definitions for "Definitions" chapter
>>         2b) any verbiage modifications for GL1
>>         3b) any verbiage modification for any CK1.x
>> 
>> (Friday would be a good deadline, Thursday CoB would be better.)

  here's my suggested text/changes

  for 2b)
  I suggest we include Lynne's definitions #1 for Use Case. We also need 
to do
  a global swap of 'Use Case' for 'User Scenario' in the existing text.
  Change GL title to "Define Use Cases"

  for 3b)
  Apply use case <->user scenario swap to all ckpt text.

  new text for ck1.2:

    Checkpoint 1.2 Include User Scenarios

    A User Scenario is an instance of a use case, representing a single 
path   through the use case.  Thus, there may be a scenario for the main 
flow   through the use case and another scenarios for each possible 
variation of   flow through the use case (e.g., representing each option). 
Unless otherwise
   specified, when included in a specification a user scenario is 
considered to be
   informative.
   The specification should have an extensive list of the user scenarios* 
that
   the authors have in mind. Priorities MAY be assigned to user scenarios,
   describing how important the particular scenario is for the 
specification.
   User scenarios in their turn may help to asses what features are 
missing and
   what features are superfluous in the specification.

  * I left out 'orthogonal' since we are going with the OMG definition 
which
     defines them as 'atomic' - I'm assuming this to be ~the same thing.  
  -Andrew

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 12:58:27 UTC