Now there exists only two types of relationship between use cases. Either <<include>> or <<extend>>.
In new Edition of Terry Quatrani book <<uses>> is repaced by <<include>> Hope this helps. Rgds, Navin -----Original Message----- From: Vinther,Erik Pilgaard EPV [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:12 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: SV: (ROSE) (What "is" is....) Use case relationships <<uses>> has been replaced by <<include>> in the UML standard. -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sendt: 30. oktober 2001 10:50 Til: ROSE_FORUM Emne: Re: (ROSE) (What "is" is....) Use case relationships ---------------------- Forwarded by Juan Carlos Abad/PE/LOC/SCHINDLER on 10/30/2001 10:43 AM --------------------------- Juan Carlos Abad 10/30/2001 10:11 AM To: "Eric D. Tarkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: (ROSE) (What "is" is....) Use case relationships (Document link: Database 'Juan Carlos Abad', View '($Sent)') Hi Eric, Extract from Terry Quatrani's "Visual Modeling with R..R.. and UML"/Use Case relationships pg.33: "... There are two types of relationshiops that may exist between use case: uses and extends. Multiple use cases may share pieces of the same functionality. This functionality is placed in a separate use case rather than documenting it in every use case that needs it. Uses relationships are created between the new use case and any other use case that uses its functionality...". Therefore in your example the stereotype of your use cases relationships would be better named <<uses>> rather than <<include>>. Best regards, Juan C. Abad/MSEE Switzerland. "Eric D. Tarkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@rational.com on 10/30/2001 01:33:59 AM Please respond to "Eric D. Tarkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ROSE_FORUM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: (ROSE) What "is" is.... Ok, here's another message from Tarkington, talking about a basic question. Thing is, if what you write doesn't have to compile or execute, you'll never prove it right or wrong. Use case diagrams don't compile or execute, so I'm canvassing for opinions. Let's suppose I have a use case named Sell a Unit, and another named Generate Sales Report. Sell a Unit automates selling a unit of something. The actor is Salesperson. Generate Sales Report automates generation of a sales report either on a regular interval or on demand. The actor for the regular interval is called System Scheduler, and the actor who wants the sales report on demand is called Sales Manager. Ignoring anything else in the system, can I have the following use case diagram? http://cs.senecac.on.ca/~etarking/deleteme.gif Assume that there is a good reason why Sell a Unit must send data to Generate Sales Report each time a sale is concluded. That is what the <<include>> dependency is meant to show. I think that I can use <<include>> this way, even though the system doesn't insert *all* of the Generate Sales Report behavior into the Sell a Unit behavior. What do you think? Does <<include>> mean <<includeallthebehaviorof>> or <<includeselectedbehaviorof>>? -Eric ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject:<BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum * ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject:<BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum * ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject:<BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum * ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject:<BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum * *************************************************************************
