I am trying to draw a use case diagram for navigation. However, I am not sure if it is correct since the 'call out address' base use case is being used as included use case.
Any comments on the above diagram please?
This is not a use case diagram. Your bubbles contain Actions being part if some Activity carried out by a use case. A use case shows added value an actors gets from the system under considertion. Please start at square one!
I recommend reading Bittner/Spence about use case modelling. The best read you can get on that topic.
Related
The above use case diagram is to detect fall
So basically, I was trying to use the 'Alarming', 'send SMS' and 'stop SMS' use case as an extension from the base case 'detection of fall' but they also have include relationship as shown in the diagram. Therefore, I tried to do it as shown in the diagram above
Any comments, please? Is it correct?
If you feel the obligation to indicate if conditions in a use-case diagram, it should probably not be a use-case diagram anymore. Try to represent this as an activity diagram, and simplify your use case to something as simple as “Alert for situations of distress”.
With this Use Case diagram, I'm unsure if I'm currently doing it correctly or not. Checked online and each site is giving me a different answer. I just need a direction or someone to correct me.
This is interesting as I am currently going through the exact same discussion with a client...
I would say "no" simply because I am unsure of what this actually represents.
A use case must bring a benefit to a user, and I really don't this in this diagram. What does Actor0 actually trying to accomplish? I do not get this from the diagram.
Did you write down statements before trying to do this? I find that going to a whiteboard and writing down what your actor's goal and how you see this happening so that the actor achieves the goal is a good start to better understanding the use case and differentiate the system being built from external systems. One way to do this is through a set of user stories (or use case slices).
And answering Thomas Kilian's excellent questions will also help you in this task!
Also, you are doing something that I see too often from people starting with use cases (and sometimes with UML experience): use case decomposition as a set of actions - basically trying to model a set of activities by breaking it down. Doing that is typically the second step in your analysis (e.g., by using activity and sequence diagrams).
No. Only "Register" (what?) and "Add/View Details" (which?) can be regarded as use cases since they add value. Neither "Login" nor "Main Menu" are use cases. The first is a constraint and the second an implementation detail.
I would like to show use case diagram me.What is correct use case diagram me about system hotel?
http://i.stack.imgur.com/KPsZU.png
Note :
- outside of system boundary is comment, Not use case
sorry don't have reputation 10. Don't show image this.
After a short review I would say that your use cases don't seem to be cut the right way. You are using <<include>> and <<extend>> in order to perform a functional analysis. This is not what use cases are all about. Each use case must show a piece of added value to its actor. I/E are a means of showing optionality for single UCs (means they can be added later in time or build a system with different level of value to the user). Showing a path of execution is something that goes completely into activity diagrams inside each use case.
As a take home message: If your UC diagrams start resembling a spider's web your design is likely broken.
What is corret use of this model .. the 1. or 2. ? ... or should have 1. extends instead of include ?
I guess the UC in #1 should read "item selection" and not section.
Both of your designs are wrong in the one or other way. "item selection" is not a use case. It does not deliver any value to Actor (at least none I could imagine). So you are trying to put a CRUD into a use case. Re-think on what the actual value is the Actor expects.
Now for include/extend: Avoid them where possible. Once you start decomposing use cases you got it wrong and if your use case diagrams resemble spider webs your design is simply broken. Use cases are synthesized, not analyzed. While the first tried to build a complete picture, the latter is something you need in code design to cut it into manageable pieces.
Let's assume that there is a UseCase called "Start Pattern Recognition". But when stating pattern recognition, it's mandatory to either to train a new model or import existing (pre trained) model. One of those option must be performed. I tried to represent that in UML as shown below (I used Includes instead of Extends since it's mandatory to perform either one of this UseCases). But I'm not sure whether it is correct to use "Extension Points" with Include UseCases. Is this correct or Is there any other way to do this?
It isn't correct; there is no analogous concept to extension points for includes in the UML spec. As xmojmr has very correctly stated, you really have your inclusion backwards.
This is easy to do, because it's easy to get caught up thinking about the order that use cases occur in over time. The use case diagram doesn't have anything to do with time; it just states what things a system does, who or what interacts with it and what uses what.
When you are ready to think about the flow of a use case, think about it in terms of an activity diagram. Also, look at the idea of a "use case narrative", which documents the behavior of the use case.
By the way, extension points in a use case diagram are optional.