http://www.sharpprogrammer.com/uml/uml-difference-between-includes-uses-and-extends/ For Smart Programmers Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:38:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.sharpprogrammer.com/uml/uml-difference-between-includes-uses-and-extends/comment-page-1/#comment-17 admin Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:39:41 +0000 http://www.sharpprogrammer.com/uml/uml-difference-between-includes-uses-and-extends/#comment-17 Thank you for pointing that out ! Thank you for pointing that out !

]]> http://www.sharpprogrammer.com/uml/uml-difference-between-includes-uses-and-extends/comment-page-1/#comment-16 ermin8 Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:25:37 +0000 http://www.sharpprogrammer.com/uml/uml-difference-between-includes-uses-and-extends/#comment-16 Your statement: 'Saying “A includes B” implies that A is a higher level goal than B, A names B as a step, and B does not name A (ordinary subroutine call semantics).' is probably the biggest mistake I see when using use cases. This leads to *very* poor use case modeling. To quote the standard: "The include relationship is intended to be used when there are common parts of the behavior of two or more use cases.". Include is *not* about decomposition of goals, but about commonality. Decomposition is far more complex. I recommend looking at "Intent Specifications: An Approach to Building Human-Centered Specifications" by Nancy Leveson found at http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers.html an d of course Cockburn's work. Your statement: ‘Saying “A includes B” implies that A is a higher level goal than B, A names B as a step, and B does not name A (ordinary subroutine call semantics).’ is probably the biggest mistake I see when using use cases. This leads to *very* poor use case modeling.
To quote the standard: “The include relationship is intended to be used when there are common parts of the behavior of two or more use cases.”. Include is *not* about decomposition of goals, but about commonality. Decomposition is far more complex. I recommend looking at “Intent Specifications: An Approach to Building Human-Centered Specifications” by Nancy Leveson found at http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers.html
an d of course Cockburn’s work.

]]>