Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
If we imagine we are given with a domain diagram and we also have a use case.
I am struggling to understand, what exactly can we derive?
Ex domain model, found on google.
I want to get to the interaction diagrams as a result.
I think the path is, system sequence diagrams -> operation contracts -> interaction diagrams
I just dont get the logic of how to derive all this from a domain diagram because on communication diagrams we can have instance creations that comes out from no where.
Can anyone explain how to derive all this from a domain diagram (if there are steps)?
This domain model represents the static structure of your domain. It does not give any information about its dynamics (how it behaves/changes over time). Sequence diagrams and interaction diagrams model the dynamics. They cannot be derived from the domain model.
In your question, you wrote: "We also have a use case". A use case gives information about the dynamics, so maybe you can derive the sequence/interaction diagrams from the use case.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I made this use case diagram:
My project is a village profile website. It is made for collecting the questions from the researcher who wants answers directly from the locals, for any reasons: covid, communication etc.
As I am not experienced with use-cases,I want to make sure that I am going in the right way. Is this diagram correct?
A use-case diagram is about the big picture and the goals (use-case bubble) that a system (the rectangle) helps its actors to achieve.
According to your diagram, there would be 5 independent systems, each with some use-cases that address different needs. Is this really what you wanted to model?
When zooming into the different systems, it appears that these are not independent systems but function groups (i.e. groups of features that offer some functionality). It appears moreover that the use-cases do not correspond to user-goals, but to detailed functions related to the function group. So you seem to do some kind of functional decomposition.
Functional decomposition is fine. But not with use-cases! It always leads to very detailed diagrams that loose the big picture and end to be unrelated to the user’s interest.
Use-cases are not either meant for user-interface design (in case you wanted each rectangle correspond to some windows/pages), or for decomposing the internal structure of the system (in case you wanted each component to correspond to some microservice or whatever). Use-case should focus only on user goals that add value to the user (typically not a login, which is only a constraint for what the user really want to do).
Good news: there remains good potential to significantly simplify this diagram ;-)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
What is a Unified Modeling Language business goal? What is its specific purpose? Distinguish it from the business use-case and locate it in the decisions level model.
There is no such thing as a business goal in UML. UML is a language which can be used for many purposes. Even BPMN (which is for purely business application) does not have such an element. A business goal is an abstract thing and you can interpret it as you like (or better as it makes sense).
Also UML does does not define business use cases. This is also on another (business) layer.
And who (except your professor) knows what a decision level model is?
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
In Lucidchart, which all data types are built in to use for attributes and parameters in class diagram?
A UML Class Diagram is simply a way to structure data about the way your code is organized. What you put into the diagram is entirely up to you and is dictated by the part of the code you are diagramming. You can try searching online for introductory guides for class diagrams that will give examples.
Within Lucidchart, absolutely any text content is valid within a UML Class Diagram shape. You will notice that the class diagram shapes contain some default text when you first add them to your diagram. This text is just an example of one notation you could use to annotate your classes and objects that you represent in your diagram. Lucidchart is just a tool that is designed to be as nonrestrictive as possible as you create your class diagram. It does not perform any logic to verify the attributes or parameters you choose to list in your diagram.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm unsure on how this relationship would work in a use case. I was hoping somebody would shed some light on this for me by explaining the relationship and the behaviour accessible by each?
This relationship is not allowed in UML 2.0.
UML 2 does not permit associations between Actors. (1)(2) The use of generalization/specialization relationship between actors is useful in modeling overlapping behaviours between actors and does not violate this constraint since a generalization relation is not a type of association.(3)
(Wikipedia)
Although Applicant is a valid concept to the system, (s)he is not a system user; therefore, it should not be an actor in the use case diagram. Even for regular use case descriptions this relationship does not matter. What matters is the user and system interactions. However, you are free to explain this relationship in a user story.
Although this is legal UML it does not have a well defined semantic. It says: Applicant is associated with Artist Manager but does not tell what kind of relation that is.
Just think by yourself: what does it tell? If you can't give a meaningful answer then it's probably nonsense.
Judging from the UC I guess that Applicant is a secondary actor. You should relate it to the UC like Artist Manager. In the past I used an undirected association for the secondary actor. Alternatively you may stereotype it with <<use>> or the like. Just be consistent with the notation.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Am kind of new to sequence diagrams and am a bit confused with sequence diagrams. I have a system where an administrator will manage the system, so my problem is if i am drawing a sequence diagram for my system , should i show the administrator interacting with all the features in the system ?
For example i have only shown administrator interacting with registering a new patient feature only , but there are other features as well such as managing records , register new doctors , so should i show the interaction with those features as well ? Or only the main features ?
Thank you for your time.
UML is not Bible. Feel free while using it.
If your diagrams get complicated, then show different aspects at different diagrams.
And this is generally better.
So it is OKEY to show "register new doctor" and "manage records" in different sequence diagrams.
There is no obligation such that you have to show everthing in a single diagram.And for each diagram you should also not have to show "everthing". It is okey to filter unnecessary details: to prefer not to show them based on modeler view. Because UML is just a visual thinking and communication tool.