Use Cases - Prmary Actor (Multiples?)

[bioform]

Thanks for the references. Always more to learn and grow!

[peter.zrnko]

I think that Visual Use Case 2006 from TechnoSolutions Corporation is a nice tool for writing Use Cases. Unfortunately it's only for this purpose.

I think if EA will go in this direction in managing Use Cases (and any text notes) it will be great.

[Weedman]

it is my understanding that the system can be a primary actor (aka another use case). We have an actor in the model which is Another Use Case.

This way when you have use cases that are common among other use cases, the included use cases primary actor is Another Use Case.

Not sure if this is correct in the purists sense of use cases and primary actors but it works for our methodology.

[jeshaw2]

 Use Case Studio is also a nice tool under development.  I like its approach to generating composite use case documents.  However, it has close ties to Rational Rose.

I too would like to see EA provide similar support.  I hate having to integrate multiple tools.

[jeshaw2]

it is my understanding that the system can be a primary actor (aka another use case). We have an actor in the model which is Another Use Case.

This way when you have use cases that are common among other use cases, the included use cases primary actor is Another Use Case.

Not sure if this is correct in the purists sense of use cases and primary actors but it works for our methodology.

 From a purist point of view, there is no particular standard that sets the purist's criteria.  UML, weak in this area, provides many opportunities for semantic variance.

In my ontology, use cases may be concrete (complete enough to stand on their own) or fragmentary (a use case consisting of behavior fragments that have been re-factored out from a set of other use cases in the same domain).  Only concrete use cases can be actors of other use cases.  In my models, included use cases tend to be fragmentary while extending ones tend to be concrete.

[«Midnight»]

I agree with much of what Jim says, but...

One of the goals of UML was to provide the user with considerable freedom in how to approach modeling, while providing a common set of building blocks. That said, something part has to be the weakest, and it is probably use cases.

Of course, many legacy works were not rigorously modeled - in UML or otherwise - and thus semantic variance is rampant in some domains.

Put another way, There are more things in heaven and earth, Jim, than are dreampt of in your ontology. [Sorry Bill, I just couldn't resist.   ]

David