Is This use case is correct/proper according to UML? if not please give some input to improve it..
The ways we can look on it as the boundary value "Use Cases" can be described something as "Release Phase 1"?
Writer Module/Reader Module should be proper Ator?
alt text http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6708/usecaseh.jpg
This diagram is telling me that there is something external to the system you are developing called a "Writer Module". The Writer needs three Use Cases, for example Initialization.
Similarly another actor needs Check Status and StackUp.
If that is what you intended to say, then this diagram works. Do you really mean it? Does only the Writer module Initialise the system? Or does the system initialise itself? Can the Reader check whether the system has been initialised, before it has been initialised? Is there another Use Case?
Small improvement: make the Use Case names match in their parts of speech. Initialisation is a "Thing", Check Status is an "Action". Perhaps Initialize System might be better? "Stack Up" not "StackUp", be consistent.
Normally the reason you group the use cases using a box is to show what system is helping meet or realize the use case. It is formally known as a system boundry ("The system you are building". Normally the systems, modules, etc that are actors are more black box, existing, or use only. If there are many new or modified systems this definition gets confusing.
The other comments are semantics of what you are showing, but are not sytax, still important.
Page 103 of Martin Fowler has a diagram and discription that uses the system boundry concept and system actors.
To pick on an example: this diagram says that Check Status is a scenario with two participants, a Writer and a Reader. Is that what you want to say?
Also, I don't remember seeing boxes around (sets of) Use Cases in general.
Use cases are meant to show how someone uses a system to get something of value. Actors always represent persons, in the sense of an independent being who has goals and is capable of seeking something of value.
Actors are represented in one of several ways, either directly by name, or by inclusion through a role, or by proxy in the form of an agent acting on behalf of a person or role (the "system" actor). Regardless of the form, the actor is always independent, and always capable of "acting" upon the system to achieve its own ends.
The diagram you have here is NOT a use case diagram. "Modules" are not independent, goal-seeking entities, they appear to be simply components of some system. They are not capable of "seeking" anything, they are just implementation details.
The diagram you are probably looking for is the Deployment diagram (if you want to model how specific components are wired together), the Activity diagram (if you want to model application logic), or the Class diagram (if you want to model the formal relationships between components).
Related
Imagine that we are building a Library system. Our use cases might be
Borrow book
Look up book
Manage membership
Imagine that we can fulfill these use cases by a librarian person or a machine. We need to realize these use cases.
Should we draw different use case realizations for different flows?
If not, it is very different to borrow a book from a machine and a person. How can we handle it?
Moreover, what if we have updated version of library machines some day? (e.g. one with keyboard and the other is with touch screen) What should we do then? The flow stays the same, however the hardware and the software eventually be different.
What would you use to realize use cases and why?
It might be a basic question, but I failed to find concrete examples on the subject to understand what is right. Thank you all in advance.
There is no single truth or one way you "should" do it. I will give you my approach, based on the Unified Process.
The use case technique is primarily used to describe a dialog between a human user (actor) and an application. It is modeled as an ellipse and further specified as an activity diagram or just a list of steps: 1 The actor does A, 2 The system does B, 3 The actor does C etc. In this approach, the application is regarded as a black box.
A "use case realization" describes how the system performs its steps (white box), e.g. in terms of collaborating components, transparent to the user.
It is possible, but much less common, to have so-called business use cases. In that case, the "system" represents an enterprise or a business unit. In your case, it would be the library. The "actor" represents an external person or organization, e.g. a client or a supplier. In your case, it would be a client. With business use cases, the library is regarded as a black box. The steps are still in format "actor does A; system does B", but here, it is not specified which of the library's actions are performed by humans and which by applications. The system is the organization, interfacing with external actors, regardless of whether this is implemented by employees or by applications.
A "business use case realization" specifies how the system performs its steps (white box) and specifies which parts are done by employees and which parts by machines.
Now, let me answer you questions one by one.
Question 1.
If you have described your use case as a business use case, and it is at such a high level of abstraction that the steps for client-librarian interaction are the same as for client-machine interaction, then you will have one business use case "Borrow book" and two business use case realizations for this business use case.
However, it is more common practice to have only use cases for user-application interaction. If the client interacts with the system in the same way as a librarian would do on behalf of the client, then you will have only one use case "Borrow book", with actor "Person". This actor has two specializations: "Client" and "Librarian". There will be only one use case realization per use case.
Otherwise, you would have one use case "Borrow book online" describing the flow of events when a client interacts directly with the application, connected to actor "Client" and another use case "Borrow book for client" describing the flow of events when a librarian interacts with the application while talking to the client. The latter use case has "Librarian" as its actor. Again, there will be only one use case realization per use case.
You may choose to model the Client-Librarian interaction separately, or not at all, depending on the purpose of your model.
Question 2.
Let's take use case "Borrow book online". You may have two use case realizations for this use case: one for the keyboard machine and one for the touch screen machine. If these use case realizations are very similar, then I would just make only one use case realization and describe the fact that there are two possible input devices inside that single realization.
Question 3.
For a business use case realization, I would use BPMN 2.0 or a UML activity diagram. These are well suited for business workflow specification.
For a normal use case realization, I usually make a sequence diagram, where the lifelines in those diagrams refer to components defined in a common component diagram. In the left margin of the sequence diagrams, I usually write the steps of the use case in UML note symbols. The sequence diagram focuses on the interaction between components, using their interfaces. This gives a nice overview of the collaboration between components in the context of a particular use case.
For more information, please refer to my white paper Which UML models should we make?. The use case realization is described on page 19.
UML is method-agnostic. Even when there are no choices to make, there are different approaches to modeling, fo example:
Have one model and refine it succesfully getting it through the stages requirements, analysis (domain model of the problem), design (abstraction to be implemented), implementation (classes that are really in the code).
Have different models for different stage and keep them all up to date
Have successive models, without updating the previous stages.
keep only a high level design model to get the big picture, but without implementation details that could be found in the code.
Likewise, for your question, you could consider having different alternative models, or one model with different alternatives grouped in different packages (to avoid naming conflicts). Personally, I’d go for the latter, because the different alternatives should NOT be detailed too much. But ultimately, it’s a question of cost and benefits in your context.
By the way, Ivar Jacobson’s book, the Object advantage applies OO modeling techniques to business process design. So UML is perfectly suitable for a human solution. It’s just that the system under consideration is no longer an IT system, but a broader organisational system, in which IT represents some components among others.
UML has collaboration elements to show different implementations. The use cases are anchors since the added value for the actors does not change. However, you can realize these use cases in different ways. And that is where the collaborations come into play. A collaboration looks like a use case but has a dashed border. And you draw a realize relation from one or many collaborations towards a use case. Inside the collaborations you show how the different implementation's classes collaborate (hence the name).
P.213 of UML 2.5 in paragraph 11.7 Collaborations:
The primary purpose of Collaborations is to explain how a system of communicating elements collectively accomplish a specific task or set of tasks without necessarily having to incorporate detail that is irrelevant to the explanation. Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns.
A CollaborationUse represents the application of the pattern described by a Collaboration to a specific situation involving specific elements playing its collaborationRoles.
Can I use directed named association on component diagram to show fact that "sys A" sends data to "sys B"?
Example:
No, you should use general purpose dependency instead, with optional title.
However, the title is not very common in this context. Better use some other diagrams (sequence for example) to show the communication details (e.g. open connection, send data, close connection, etc).
If there is a well defined interface between those systems, you can indicate that as well like this:
Association is used between two classes to show that their instances are potentially connected (again, not for data flow indication).
In UML 2.0 the concept behind association is vague, read this article: http://www.uml-diagrams.org/uml-core.html (search for "Semantic Relationship"). Association denotes a "semantic relationship" between two components, and I think it wouldn't be appropriate for data flow.
I think that even dependency isn't appropriate for data flows: maybe the client depends from the supplier, maybe the opposite is true... so the arrow can be very confusing.
The lollipop notation is the best, IMHO: it shows clearly that there is a component providing an interface, and another one requiring it. You can use stereotypes on the interface to show the type of communication/data transfer, and labels to make clear what data is transferred.
The book "Documenting Software Architectures" adopts another style, using prevalently associations: see p.145. It's similar to your initial proposal, but with explicit roles and without arrows. I think isn't a really satisfactory solution, without stereotypes...
If sys A sends information to sys B and you're not interested in how exactly the transmission takes place, then that is a classic application of the Information Flow connector.
A Dependency would in this case say that sys A needs (is dependent on) sys B for something. An Information Flow often (but not always) goes in the opposite direction of a Dependency, since it is typically the receiver that needs the sender.
There are many different ways of showing these types of relationships, and the best one depends on the situation. If your focus is on the type of information being transmitted, then Information Flow is the best fit. If your focus is on the way the transmission takes place, something with an Interface, possibly an Assembly, is better.
EA actually allows you to specify an Information Flow over an Assembly, so you could even combine the two. It's all down to what exactly you want to express.
suppose you have to do a Use Case Diagram for this simple problem (that is part of a much bigger exercise i am doing):
a registered user (of a web application) can search for tourist attractions in two ways: by category (for example: museums, parks, theaters, archaeological sites) or by location (city, county).
How should i model this UCD?
The most simple way would be: the actor (registered user), two use cases (search tourist attraction by category and search by location), the secondary actor (the server of the web application, which would process the query and send back the results).
My concern is that in this way the four categories and the two type of locations would not be present in the use case.
I was thinking of using the "extend" relationship. For example, i would add a use case named "Search parks" that extends the use case "Search by category". The extension point would be the event that the user chooses to search for parks.
Or i could use an inheritance relationship between the "Search by category" and "Search parks"...mmmm...i am a little confused...
How would you model this little problem using USD??
Thank you,
Luca
First of all you have to realize, that Use Case Diagrams aren't substitute for actual (written) Use Cases. Use Case descriptions contain many important details, which are omitted in Use Case diagrams. Use Case diagrams are good for depicting hierarchies of actors, associated use cases and relationships between use cases, but nothing more.
Another important thing is to realize what an use case actually is. Good way to think about them is to find a goal of an actor, which he/she wants to achieve with help from the system. Achieving this goal should give the actor some business value. My point is, that from what you described, registered user might want to search for a sightseeing and/or buy entry tickets. So this is his goal and this should be a an use case, don't confuse use cases with functionality/features like different ways of searching etc.
In your first suggestion you have two use cases, which differ only in data (e.g. it might be just different choice from a combo box in a form). Such differences, if they don't influence the way the system and actors interact, are described separately from the use cases in a data glossary, which you reference in your use case. This way you avoid many unnecessary details in use case descriptions. If on the other hand, the steps in the description change (e.g. when registečred user chooses location system gives him/her an option to select another registered user as a friend and pre-selects favourite locations of both or something like that...), you can capture this by using alternatives/extensions.
You mention the system you are developing as the secondary actor. Don't forget, the system under development is an implicit actor and is not shown diagrams as a separate actor. Use boundary box (rectangle encompassing use cases excluding actors) to depict scope of your system.
Finally to your concern. These are all just details about the data, which are not part of an use case. You can capture those details in text (by namicng all categories etc.) using the data glossary as mentioned above. If you think the structure and relations between data is important and needs to be captured using diagrams, you can use class diagrams to create data/domain models.
Last note about use case relationships - don't use them if you don't have to. They are often hard to understand and vaguely defined. Never ever use them to decompose the functionality, that is up to design, not analysis with use cases.
I hate depicting Search in a use case. There are simply too many variables. It's like trying to write a use case for using a browser.
Search is a good candidate for early prototyping supplemented with business rules.
I have to develop a CRUD application, that will be coded in php.
I have 3 main actors (Users, Administrators and Doctors -- this is for an hypothetical
hospital), each one with different Use Cases already defined.
Although I feel the Use Cases are more than enough to successfuly model the Class Diagram, I am being specifically asked to also include DataFlow Diagrams into the project's documentation.
I've been reading about DataFlow diagrams, and it seems you usually have first of all a Level 0 DataFlow Diagram, to which they call Context Diagram.
Being that this is basically a 3-tier application with 3 different Actors, how should I model the Context Diagram?
Being that a Context Diagram is supposed to just tell us what comes in and what comes out of our System, I can't imagine anything more interesting/descriptive than the following diagram:
Is this supposed to be something like this, or am I totally missing the point? This php page will connect to an Oracle database, but I guess that if the idea is to consider the System as a whole in the Context Diagram, I should "hide" that fact in the above diagram.
Where should I go on from here? I know I should "zoom" the System process to something more detailed. Maybe the next step would be to depict each one of the User Cases in a DataFlow diagram? Do I include repositories of data, already? For example, one for Users, other for Doctors and yet another for Administrators?
Thanks
Are you sure there's nothing else the system interacts with? e.g. diagnostics input, etc.?
If not then your context diag is basically ok - although I'd probably show each entity once and use double headed arrows. I'd agree with your reasoning for the db - it's part of the system, not external to it - so don't show it on the CD.
As for next steps, again you're on the right lines. Try modelling the flow for each Use Case as a DFD. DFDs are very useful for illustrating processing-intensive apps. Difficult to know if that's a good match to your problem or not.
You'll find DFDs are also useful for driving out and validating your Class Diagram. In fact, that's one of their strengths: datastores on the DFD should correlate with the contents of your class diagram (not necessarily one datastore to one class though). So do include datastores as you work through the processes. You'll find it drives out more than just the Actors.
hth.
Some remarks:
You DFD does not tell me much, except that Users, Administrators and Doctors use it, but it gives me no clue what they get from the system (except "Output Data"). IOW the context diagram does not give me the slightest idea, what the system does.
Admittedly, if the system is large, then it can be difficult to describe the dataflows in few words, but just about anything is better than "data".
The fact that the system is a 3tier architecture is irrelevant for the DFD. This is an implementation detail. DFDs are an analysis tool. You describe what you want the system to do, not how this is achieved.
I find it particularly useful to focus on the outgoing flows. While Users, Administrators and Doctors provide input to the system, this is most likely nothing they want to do. It is something they have to do in order to get the desired output.
On a Use Case diagram can you show things that an actor cannot do, for example because they won't have permissions to do it?
Or is it just implied due to the fact that they won't have a line joining them to the particular use case?
If the Use Case you are diagramming is the case where an actor attempts to do something that is not permitted and is then denied, then yes, I would show it.
Otherwise, I would stick to only including things that are actually part of the use case.
No. An Actor would be connected to everything that he can do. If the Actor can't do it, then it's not shown.
This is what alternate paths are for. The basic path (a.k.a. happy path) will show what happens when the correct Actor initiates the Use Case. In the alternate paths you can show what happens if the wrong Actor attempts to initiate it.
You might model Role actors that can do the task. You could then have another use case that has the original actor attempting to acquire the given Role.
IMHO this question and most of the answers give a wrong impression about the way use cases should be used.
Use case was intended as a requirements technique that uses natural language. It is most and quite effective that way.
It can be a thoroughly destructive technique when it is combined with too much UML/modeling. Structured modeling of use case texts for example by modeling main and alternative flows using UML Activity Diagrams is a tried and tested way for example to create Use Cases of Mass Destruction.
A use case diagram can be useful but we should remember the purpose of use case as a technique which is first and foremost to identify the user goals a system should support. Subsequently we can capture more details using natural language in use case texts using main flow, alternative flows etc.
Using diagramming tools we can visualize some simple information:
- For each user goal we can create model element type Use Case.
- Show system boundary using a box for the system with use case elements in it.
- Create a relationship between actor and use case to show the actor has a particular goal against the system.
Keeping an up-to-date list of actors mapped to goals is however of secondary importance. Doing a stakeholder analysis, drawing up lists of actors is a means to identify the users goals. After user goals have been identified it is strictly speaking not longer necessary to keep the lists of actors around.
If we are asking questions about how to put user permissions in a use case model we are most likely trying to capture too much information. We should abstract model elements away so that the model does not try to answer/capture these type of detailed design questions.