When modelling use cases, I usually end up giving the use cases an
identifying number (ie: UC 10: Buy coffee).
Some of our software processes are highly use case driven, some are not
(project dependent). But, even if you also use Requisite Pro (Analyst
Studio), the average project ends up with a *lot* of artefacts referencing
those use cases. So, when you start using them in project plans,
communication with project owners and a lot of other stuff that's not really
an integral part of RUP, you need to get a firmer human-readable handle on
your use cases.
I know that a lot of us miss temporal/numeric/seqence ordering mechanisms as
a part of Rose. There's no sequencing of diagrams, no way to tell any kind
of story. I just don't understand why there's no provision for proper
numbering of use cases within rose. Rose is their point of origin, and the
numbers should start there...? I can't see Requisite Pro's numbering as
filling the same role. I know the RoseID of the Use Case is unique, but
*that* is from another domain, in my opinion (human readable was an
issue...). Actually if you number your use cases in Rose, things start
looking seriously silly in AnalystStudio....
[As a side note: It looks to me like RequisitePro has a very weak structural
model of the project you're working on. The relationship with the actual use
cases seems to be maintained through word-documents and other less
structured information.]
Every time someone asks me about this, I just shrug. Sometimes I suggest
it's because RUP is a production method and the designers weren't thinking
about the project management universe (or all those other things that happen
in real projects). Or sometimes I blame it on antiquated/outdated tool
design.
Is there anything resembeling a sensible explanation of why use case
numbering is not there ?
Regards
Kristian Rosenvold
ADCORE
Digital Business Creators
Mobile +47 982 38 056
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1236925, IM: Krosenvold
<<Kristian Rosenvold.vcf>>
Kristian Rosenvold.vcf
