| <?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: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://_WCUhAO8KEdmKSqa_gSYthg#_uuunoPsDEdmyhNQr5STrZQ"/> |
| <sections xmi:id="_663wMNk1Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="Is the use-case name meaningful and unambiguous?" |
| guid="_663wMNk1Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><ul>
 |
| <li> Does the use case have a unique name? </li>
 |
| <li> Is the name a verb + noun phrase (for example, Withdraw Cash)? </li>
 |
| <li> Does the name accurately&nbsp;summarize the&nbsp;main purpose&nbsp;of the 
 |
| use case? </li>
 |
| <li> Is the name Actor-independent? </li>
 |
| </ul></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_ZTA8QJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Does the brief description clearly describe the primary goal of the use case?" |
| guid="_ZTA8QJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ"> |
| <sectionDescription><ul>
 |
| <li> Is it clear from the brief description what the main purpose of the use 
 |
| case is? </li>
 |
| <li> Is the "observable result of value" obvious? </li>
 |
| </ul></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_4wJRgJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Are associated Actors and information exchanged clearly defined?" |
| guid="_4wJRgJznEduBcbjYtLtItQ"> |
| <sectionDescription><ul>
 |
| <li> Is the use case associated with one or more Actors? </li>
 |
| <li> Is the primary, or initiating Actor, defined? </li>
 |
| <li> Is it clear who performs the actions in the use case? </li>
 |
| <li> Is all information exchanged between the Actors and the system clearly 
 |
| specified? </li>
 |
| <li> 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 
 |
| who define schedule events)? </li>
 |
| </ul></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_Qys_INk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="Are the pre-conditions specified?" |
| guid="_Qys_INk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><p> Does each precondition 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 alternative flows complete, correct, and consistent?" |
| guid="_q3qV0Nk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><ul>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Is it clear how the use case starts?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Is the triggering event clearly described?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Does the flow have a definite ending?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Does&nbsp;each step in the scenario contain&nbsp;the same level of abstraction?&nbsp;&nbsp;
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Does each step in the scenario describe something that can actually happen and that the system can reasonably
 |
| detect?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Does each step make&nbsp;progress toward the goal?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| 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 cases conform to the users' expectations?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Does each step describe how the step helps the Actors achieve their goals?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Is each step technology-independent? Is it free of technical details and inadvertent design decisions?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Are the steps correctly numbered?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| For each alternate flow,&nbsp;are the conditions for initiation of the flow clearly defined?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| For each alternate flow, is it clear how the use case ends or where in the basic flow that the use case resumes?
 |
| </li>
 |
| </ul></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_dnLXMNk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA" name="Are the post-conditions specified?" |
| guid="_dnLXMNk2Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA"> |
| <sectionDescription><ul>
 |
| <li>
 |
| 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.)
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| 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.)
 |
| </li>
 |
| </ul></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| <sections xmi:id="_vkbMAJzrEduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Are applicable nonfunctional requirements captured?" |
| guid="_vkbMAJzrEduBcbjYtLtItQ"> |
| <sectionDescription><ul>
 |
| <li> Are nonfunctional requirements (such as performance criteria) that are&nbsp;applicable 
 |
| to the&nbsp;use case captured in the use case? </li>
 |
| <li> Are these nonfunctional requirements applicable to many use cases? It they 
 |
| are, consider capturing them in the supporting Requirements Specification 
 |
| to simplify maintenance. </li>
 |
| </ul></sectionDescription> |
| </sections> |
| </org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription> |
