Use relationship

[zyx]

Dear all,

     As always, I apologize for my bad english...

     The use relationship in the use cases diagram was deprecated? I am reading the UML 2.5 formal documentation and I am founding nothing about this relationship in the section about use cases. There is no a metaclass to represent this association in the use case metamodel too. I found documentation about include and extend but nothing about the use relationship... It is no more a valid relationship to be applied in the use case diagram?

[qwerty]

You may still use <<use>> if you find it useful (pun intended). Just create your own stereotype, describe it's meaning and you are done.

q.

[zyx]

Right, but the relationship is not an official relationship in UML anymore? I am just curious, old books present it as a valid relationship to be applied in the use case diagram...

[Geert Bellekens]

There is still a Usage relation defined in the meta model as a subclass of Dependency. (See UML 2.5 §7.8.23 on page 60)
It uses the «use» keyword to indicate the difference between a Usage and a regular Dependency (see the last keyword of Annex C: Keywords)

The definition says:

A Usage is a Dependency in which the client Element requires the supplier Element (or set of Elements) for its full
implementation or operation.

But I would not recommend it. I've done loads of Use Cases, and I never used the Usage, nor did I ever feel I needed something vague like that.

Geert

[qwerty]

Partially/temporarily (can't remember exactly) we used the <<use>> to indicate secondary actors. That wasn't too devious.

q.