Scenario Construction Tool Based on Extended UML Metamodel

  • Michał Śmiałek
  • Jacek Bojarski
  • Wiktor Nowakowski
  • Tomasz Straszak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)

Abstract

Scenario based notations are becoming more and more popular as means for user requirements elicitation. They can be used in more formal specifications as part of detailed use case templates or in agile processes to capture informal user stories. Despite their significance in software engineering, scenarios seem not to be properly supported by appropriate tools. This paper describes a scenario construction tool that offers clear separation of the actual story from notions used therein. The tool is constructed as an extension to visual notation of UML’s use cases. It is based on an extended UML metamodel in the area of activities and classifiers. This formal basis makes the tool capable of supplying the existing UML tools with an additional layer of requirements models based on scenarios and notions. This layer makes it possible to transform requirements directly into design-level models. The tool offers such transformation capabilities based on a simple model mapping. This transformation supports human efforts to keep the system’s design consistent with the user’s needs expressed through scenarios.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alexander, I., Maiden, N. (eds.): Scenarios, Stories, Use Cases. John Wiley, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gelperin, D.: Precise use cases. Technical report, LiveSpecs Software (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Constantine, L.L.: What do users want? Engineering usability into software. Windows Tech Journal (1995) revised in 2000, http://www.foruse.com/articles/whatusers.htm
  6. 6.
    Hurlbut, R.R.: A survey of approaches for describing and formalizing use cases. Technical Report XPT-TR-97-03, Expertech Ltd. (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Śmiałek, M.: Accommodating informality with necessary precision in use case scenarios. Journal of Object Technology 4 (2005) (to be published)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham, I.: Object-Oriented Methods Principles & Practice. Pearson Education (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCoy, J.R.: Requirements use case tool (RUT). In: OOPSLA 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexander, I.: Goal patterns generate scenarios. In: RESG Scenarios Day (1999), http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/iany/consultancy/goalpatt/goalpatt.htm
  11. 11.
    Sutcliffe, A.G., Maiden, N.A.M., Minocha, S., Manuel, D.: Supporting scenario– based requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24, 1072–1088 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gryczon, P., Stańczuk, P.: Obiektowy system konstrukcji scenariuszy przypadków uzycia (Object-oriented use case scenario construction system). Master’s thesis, Warsaw University of Technology (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0, Revised Final Adopted Specification, ptc/04-10-02 (2004) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J. (eds.): MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, omg/03-06-01. Object Management Group (2003) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van den Berg, K.G., Simons, A.J.H.: Control flow semantics of use cases in UML. Information and Software Technology 41, 651–659 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metz, P., O’Brien, J., Weber, W.: Specifying use case interaction: Types of alternative courses. Journal of Object Technology 2, 111–131 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simons, A.J.H.: Use cases considered harmful. In: Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems-TOOLS Europe 1999, Nancy, France, pp. 194–203. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Metz, P., O’Brien, J., Weber, W.: Against use case interleaving. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 472–486. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Śmiałek, M.: Profile suite for model transformations on the computation independent level. In: Jardim Nunes, N., Selic, B., Rodrigues da Silva, A., Toval Alvarez, A. (eds.) UML Satellite Activities 2004. LNCS, vol. 3297, pp. 264–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Genova, G., Llorens, J., Metz, P., Prieto-Diaz, R., Astudillo, H.: Open issues in industrial use case modeling. In: Jardim Nunes, N., Selic, B., Rodrigues da Silva, A., Toval Alvarez, A. (eds.) UML Satellite Activities 2004. LNCS, vol. 3297, pp. 52–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michał Śmiałek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jacek Bojarski
    • 1
  • Wiktor Nowakowski
    • 1
  • Tomasz Straszak
    • 1
  1. 1.Warsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Infovide S.A.WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations