- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:06:56 -0600
- To: andrew@opengroup.org
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
Andrew et al -- I'd like to add something to the thread, in advance of us tackling the issue: 1.) the current wording of CK1.2 implies formalism for use cases, user scenarios, usage scenarios, or whatever we decide to call them. But there are abundant examples where they are prose-y descriptions of sample user scenarios, examples, etc. 2.) and there is the question (issue #72) whether they are normative or informative. I think that we (QAWG) believe that "SOAP Version 1.2" satisfies the two checkpoints, in particular section 2, 3, 4 of Part 0: Primer. All of Part 0 is informative, and it is mostly descriptive prose, with some actual SOAP-code examples accompanying the prose. So maybe we need to split the checkpoints? Allow informative, prose user scenario descriptions to satisfy the priority 1 checkpoints, and give "extra credit" (P2 or P3 checkpoints) for formalism and normativity (whatever the latter actually means)? -Lofton. At 04:27 PM 7/29/02 +0100, Andrew Thackrah wrote: >Re Action Item A-2002-07-10-1 There is an outstanding issue (#72, [1]) on >the Spec. guidelines doc (07/22 version, [2]) relating to checkpoint 1.2; >the definition of a use case and the implication of it being normative. > > The problem is that there is no formal definition of what a use case is, > and that this undefined thing is being made normative. Anything that is > normative in a spec. is important and so should be defined carefully > before inclusion. > What is a use case? There are several definitions but I think that one > that is closest to the SpecGL idea of a formal user scenario involves a > related sequence of actions or events, quantified with standard inputs > and expected outputs. > In my experience a scenario is composed of a chain of lower level test > assertions. (The purpose of the scenario is often to verify > interoperability, something not easily done at the 'atomic' level of an >assertion.) > This implies the existence of low level, testable assertions being > available before a use case can be defined - and this overlaps with > Guideline 15 and the idea of test cases. So I think we need to answer > the question "Is a Use Case the same thing as a Test case?" If not, > how is it different? > To make a start at answering this I'll note that the UML style of use > case includes actors with specific roles. The various 'users' to which > SpecGL scenarios might apply to may correspond to actors. However, UML > use cases capture behaviour, not activity. > If a SpecGL use case captures behaviour, how is it formalised and tested?. > If a specGL use case does not capture behaviour - does it capture > activity instead? Or something else? > > -Andrew > > [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x72 > [2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/07/qaframe-spec-0722.html >
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 20:06:59 UTC