OpenUP/OpenUP_baseline_EN/library/openup_basic/guidances/checklists/design_vm.xmi

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription xmi:version="2.0" xmlns:xmi="http://www.omg.org/XMI" xmlns:org.eclipse.epf.uma="http://www.eclipse.org/epf/uma/1.0.3/uma.ecore" epf:version="1.0.0" xmi:id="-HQSI39vBrjpmQL1qHYOJtA" name="new_checklist,_nnSXcD6SEduAL-bCqar_dg" guid="-HQSI39vBrjpmQL1qHYOJtA" version="1.0.0">
  <sections xmi:id="_sG8ZoD6SEduAL-bCqar_dg" name="Packages and Organization" guid="_sG8ZoD6SEduAL-bCqar_dg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;p&gt;
    Is the package partitioning logical and consistent? Does it make sense to team members and stakeholders?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Do package names accurately describe the contents of the package and the role they play in the architecture? Do they
    follow naming conventions?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Do public packages and interfaces provide a logically cohesive set of services?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are all the contents of a package listed? Are the classes within a package cohesive?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Do package dependencies correspond to the dependencies of the contained classes?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are there packages or classes within a package that can be separated into and independent or sub-package?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;</sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_tx6tsD6SEduAL-bCqar_dg" name="Views" guid="_tx6tsD6SEduAL-bCqar_dg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;p&gt;
    Does each diagram help the designer reason about the design, or communicate key design decisions to the team?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are the relationships between diagrams clear when several diagrams are used to describe behavior?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Is it easy to navigate between related diagrams?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Does each diagram focus on a relevant perspective? For instance, does a set of diagrams show a single class and its
    direct relationships, rather than using&amp;nbsp;one or two diagrams to show all classes?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Is each diagram complete and minimal? Does it show everything relevant to that view and nothing more?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are the diagrams tidy and easy to interpret, with a minimum of clutter?
&lt;/p&gt;</sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_yeFh4D6SEduAL-bCqar_dg" name="UML" guid="_yeFh4D6SEduAL-bCqar_dg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;p&gt;
    Does the visual model conform to UML standards so all stakeholders can understand the model over time? See the&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uml.org/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;OMG UML Resource Page&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;for more information.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Does the visual model conform to project or organization specific modeling standards?
&lt;/p&gt;
Is the visual model internally consistent? For instance, if an object diagram shows a relationship between objects, does a
corresponding relationship exist between the appropriate classes?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Does the name of each class clearly reflect the role it plays?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Does each class offer the required behavior?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Is there at least one&amp;nbsp;realization association defined for each interface? The realization may represent a 3rd
    party implementation of the subsystem.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are&amp;nbsp;there dependency associations from each subsystem to the interfaces it uses?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Is each operation in a subsystem interface described in a sequence diagram? Or at least mapped directly to an operation
    in a class?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Does each class represent a single well defined abstraction?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are generalization relationships used only to inherit definitions, not behavior (implementation)? In other words, is
    behavior shared through the use of association, aggregation and containment relationships instead of generalization?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are parent classes in generalization relationships abstract? Are the &quot;leaf&quot; classes in a generalization hierarchy the
    only concrete classes?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are stereotypes used consistently and meaningfully?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Do&amp;nbsp;statecharts exist for classes with complex or restrictive state changes?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Do relationships have descriptive role or association names (one or the other but not both), and&amp;nbsp;correct
    multiplicities?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are relationships between classes unidirectional whenever possible?&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;</sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_IsDY4D6TEduAL-bCqar_dg" name="Non-UML Visual Modeling" guid="_IsDY4D6TEduAL-bCqar_dg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;p&gt;
    Are the semantics of the visual modeling language clearly defined, documented, and accessible to team members? The
    semantics should be meaninful to the users of the model.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Can the semantics of the modeling language be understood over time? Is the language documented well enough so that team
    members can understand the model long after design decisions have taken place?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Are team members and stakeholders trained in the modeling language being used?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
    Does the visual model conform to the semantics of the visual modeling language? In other words, are the meanings
    of&amp;nbsp;the symbols in the diagrams&amp;nbsp;consistent across the model and diagrams?&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;</sectionDescription>
  </sections>
</org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription>