| <?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/1.0.5/uma.ecore" |
| xmlns:rmc="http://www.ibm.com/rmc" rmc:version="7.5.0" xmlns:epf="http://www.eclipse.org/epf" |
| epf:version="1.5.0" xmi:id="-T2IeqdOunweffIDgL-aM0w" |
| name="use_case,_0Vk8cMlgEdmt3adZL5Dmdw" guid="-T2IeqdOunweffIDgL-aM0w" authors="Paul Bramble" |
| changeDate="2006-05-01T10:13:56.264-0700" version="0.1"> |
| <copyrightStatement href="uma://_iVydgENdEdy245g62lfWcA#_uuunoPsDEdmyhNQr5STrZQ"/> |
| <sections xmi:id="_663wMNk1Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="The use-case name is 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="The brief description clearly describes 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="Associated actors and information exchanged are 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="Pre-conditions have been 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="The Basic Flow and Alternate Flows are 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="Post-conditions have been 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="Applicable non-functional requirements have been 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
 |
| system-wide requirements specification to simplify maintenance.
 |
| </p></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| </org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription> |
