| <?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="-T2IeqdOunweffIDgL-aM0w" name="use_case,_0Vk8cMlgEdmt3adZL5Dmdw" guid="-T2IeqdOunweffIDgL-aM0w" authors="Paul Bramble" changeDate="2006-05-01T13:13:56.264-0400" version="0.1"> |
| <copyrightStatement href="uma://_WCUhAO8KEdmKSqa_gSYthg#_uuunoPsDEdmyhNQr5STrZQ"/> |
| <sections xmi:id="_663wMNk1Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="Is the use-case name meaningful and un-ambiguous?" guid="_663wMNk1Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> |
| Does the use case have a unique name? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is the name a verb + noun phrase (for example, Withdraw Cash)? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Does the name accurately&nbsp;summarize the&nbsp;main goal&nbsp;of the use case? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is the name "actor independent"? |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_ZTA8QJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Does the brief description clearly describe the primary goal of the use case?" guid="_ZTA8QJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> |
| Is it clear from the brief description what the main purpose of the use case is? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is the "observable result of value" obvious? |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_4wJRgJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Are associated actors and information exchanged clearly defined?" guid="_4wJRgJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> |
| Is the use case associated with one or more actors? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is the primary, or initiating actor, defined? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is it clear who wishes to perform the use case? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is all information exchanged between the actor(s) and the system clearly specified? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| If a "time" actor is used, are you sure you did not miss an important actor and associated use cases (such as |
| administrative or maintenance personnel that define schedule events)? |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_Qys_INk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="Are the pre-conditions specified?" guid="_Qys_INk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> |
| Does each pre-condition represent a tangible&nbsp;state&nbsp;of&nbsp;the system (for example, the Withdraw Cash use |
| case for an automated teller machine has a precondition that the user has an account)? |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_q3qV0Nk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="Are the Basic Flow and Alternate Flows complete, correct and consistent?" guid="_q3qV0Nk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> |
| Is it clear how the use case is started? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is the triggering event clearly described? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Does the flow have a definite ending? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Does&nbsp;each step in the scenario contain&nbsp;the same level of abstraction?&nbsp;&nbsp; |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Does each step in the scenario describe something that can actually happen and that the system can reasonably detect? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Does each step make&nbsp;progress towards the goal? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Are there any missing steps? Is it clear how to go from one step to the next? Does the sequence of communication |
| between the actors and the use case conform to the user's expectations? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Does each step describe how the step helps the actor achieve their goal? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Is each step technology independent? Is it free of technical details, and design decisions? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Are the steps correctly numbered? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| For each alternate flow is the condition(s) for initiation of the flow clearly defined? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| For each alternate flow is it clear how the use case ends or where in the basic flow that the use case resumes? |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_dnLXMNk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="Are the post-conditions specified?" guid="_dnLXMNk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> |
| If "Minimal Guarantees" are present, do they always happen when the use case completes, regardless of success? (A |
| Minimal Guarantee represents&nbsp;a condition&nbsp;that will be true when the use case ends, regardless of how it |
| terminates.) |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| If "Success Guarantees" are present, do they always happen when the use case completes successfully? (A Success |
| Guarantee represents a condition that will be true when the use case ends successfully, regardless of which path it |
| takes.) |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_vkbMAJzrEduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Are applicable non-functional requirements captured?" guid="_vkbMAJzrEduBcbjYtLtItQ"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> |
| Are non-functional requirements (such as performance criteria) that are&nbsp;applicable to the&nbsp;use case captured |
| in the use case? |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Are these non-functional requirements applicable to many use cases?&nbsp; It they are, consider capturing them in the |
| supporting requirements specification to simplify maintenance. |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| </org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription> |