W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: use case definition -- follow-up

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:29:15 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020814170637.03cd4a90@rockynet.com>
To: andrew@opengroup.org
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Andrew, Lynne, et al QAWG --

(Word-smithing review/help please.)

Thanks for this, Andrew.  As I started out to implement it in the SpecGL, 
the first thing I did was try to write two definitions for Chapter 4, based 
on your suggested way forward.  In the style of Ch.4, a definition needs to 
look like:  "a <something> that <..blah..>".  To apply the text suggested 
by Lynne and you, I had to invent <something> and then cut-paste your 
<..blah..>.  Here is a first cut:

use case

a specification mechanism or technique that captures all the different ways 
a specification would be used, including the set of  interactions between 
the user and the specification as well as the services, tasks, and 
functions the specification is required to perform.

user scenario

an instance of a use case, that represents 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).

(Note.  On purpose, Ch.4 may contain functional or contextual definitions, 
not terse dictionary-like definitions.)

What do you think (all)?

-Lofton.

At 05:57 PM 8/14/02 +0100, you wrote:

>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 19:29:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT