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: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:54:22 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020816084410.03880700@rockynet.com>
To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG --

David proposes some modifications.  Any objections?

At 01:09 AM 8/16/2002 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:

>I have a problem with the plain, ordinary meaning of "case" in
>contrast to "use case" being defined as:
>...captures all the different ways a specification would be used...

I think that I have inadvertently distorted the definition.  Original words 
from Lynne said "A complete set of use cases captures all...".  I can work 
on rectifying that confusion.


>I think we want to encourage publication of a set of use cases that
>is sufficient to justify the existence of a new standard and all the
>work that goes into creating its specification. If there are more use
>cases beyond the published ones, that's fine, but I don't think that
>the QA or W3C needs are served by suggesting that *all* uses need to
>be enumerated.
>
>I prefer:
>a specification mechanism or technique that conveys the range of
>different ways a specification would be used...

Does anyone object to reworking it so that it has this sense?

>Notice that my preferred verbiage grants some value to the attempt to
>convey "all the ways" but allows the sufficiency standard to prevail.

I sympathize with this -- don't raise the bar too high.  There is some 
subjectivity in "sufficient", but there might also be some subjectivity in 
measuring "complete".
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 10:56:51 GMT

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