Business Rules and UC

[thomaskilian]

This has been discussed quite a while ago. Now I reached a position where I actually need help: When writing down a UC I encounter certain business rules. For example there is a rule on how to distribute incomming post to certain departments. I would like to write my UC straight and note somewhere that BR xyz applies here. Has anyone got a clue on how to model that?

[thomaskilian]

Oh! I think the answer is plainly: define a requirement, assign it a <<business rule>> stereotype and create a link.

Well, any opinion is welcome

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Oh! I think the answer is plainly: define a requirement, assign it a <<business rule>> stereotype and create a link.

Well, any opinion is welcome

What kind of link did you decide on Thomas?  A straight «trace»  dependency (or something else)?

Paolo

[thomaskilian]

I decided to use the <<realize>> relation. I guess that makes sense?

[«Midnight»]

I've worked with groups creating metamodels. They also use the <<realize>> relationship to indicate which requirements are satisfied by elements.

[StefanPears]

Assuming the business rule affects only this business use case, it's a good idea to use <view> <other windows> <rules> (CTRL + Shift + 3).

[jeshaw2]

Assuming the business rule affects only this business use case, it's a good idea to use <view> <other windows> <rules> (CTRL + Shift + 3).

What is the benefit of doing this?  I tried it and saw no difference on the diagram.

[StefanPears]

Jim, that IS the benefit: you have no change in your diagram. But you get a nice table with rules in the generated rtf-report (SPARX: row-sorting could be improved).
Stefan

[Bruno.Cossi]

One disadvantage of this is that you need to have a Use Case prior to capturing the business rule - frequently you will learn about a business rule before you have a stable set of Use Cases.

Bruno

Assuming the business rule affects only this business use case, it's a good idea to use <view> <other windows> <rules> (CTRL + Shift + 3).

[thomaskilian]

That's why I always use external requirement. Anyway I learned that the UC internal requirements are actually responsibilities.

[«Midnight»]

Thomas,

Regarding

Anyway I learned that the UC internal requirements are actually responsibilities.

Is this from OMG? Or, is it a case of EA not being CCC?

[I'm just trying to determine how concerned I am, and why...]

David

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Thomas,

Regarding
Is this from OMG? Or, is it a case of EA not being CCC?

[I'm just trying to determine how concerned I am, and why...]

David

Technically, David, its a low level fracture of CCC...  The  only problem with the EA setup is that the element specific things are ALSO called requirements.(instead of responsibilities).   Sparx have admitted it is better to view them as responsibilities - since they are element specific and good OO design requires (encourages) that...  I strongly agree!  The notion that requirements don't have a possible many-to-many relationship with other elements is risible.

All that remains is for Sparx to change the headings on the element specific responsibilities tab from Require  to: Responsibilities.  That way, it is CCC with the Set Feature Visibility ([Ctrl+Shift+Y]) dialog which already calls them Responsibilities.

HTH,
Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Thanks Paolo,

This does not sound as bad as I had feared.

Is there any issue with the difference between "internal" and "external" requirements (in the current vernacular), or do they need only to make the changes where Thomas' message suggests?

David

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Thanks Paolo,

This does not sound as bad as I had feared.

Is there any issue with the difference between "internal" and "external" requirements (in the current vernacular), or do they need only to make the changes where Thomas' message suggests?

David

David,

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, can you explain more?

Paolo

[jeshaw2]

I find the idea of documenting a use case's responsibilities attractive, but none of the textual use case templates I've run across seem to include a Responsibilities section.  Is this something I should be considering for the future?