Complementary Use Case Scenario Representations Based on Domain Vocabularies

  • Michał Śmiałek
  • Jacek Bojarski
  • Wiktor Nowakowski
  • Albert Ambroziewicz
  • Tomasz Straszak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4735)


Use cases are commonly used as notation for capturing functional requirements through scenarios. The problem is that there is no universal notation for use case contents which is capable of accommodating all the needs of software project participants. Business analysts and stakeholders need understandability and informality, while for architects and designers, precision and unambiguity are the most crucial features. In this paper we propose a metamodel and concrete syntax for three complementary representations of use case scenarios. These representations present the same information, but put emphasis on different aspects of it thus accommodating for different readers. This metamodel utilises the idea of separation of requirements as such from their representations as well as the idea of clear distinction between description of the system’s behaviour and of the problem domain.


use cases requirements scenarios activity diagrams interaction diagrams 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, I.: A taxonomy of stakeholders, human roles in system development. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 1(1), 23–59 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, I., Maiden, N.: Scenarios, Stories, Use Cases Through the Systems Development Life-Cycle. John Wiley, New York, NY (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cockburn, A.: Structuring use cases with goals. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 5(10), 56–62 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Genova, G., Llorens, J., Metz, P., Prieto-Diaz, R., Astudillo, H.: Open issues in industrial use case modeling. In: Nunes, N.J., Selic, B., Rodrigues da Silva, A., Toval Alvarez, A. (eds.) UML Modeling Languages and Applications. LNCS, vol. 3297, pp. 52–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graham, I.M.: Task scripts, use cases and scenarios in object-oriented analysis. Object-Oriented Systems 3(3), 123–142 (1996)Google Scholar
  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.
    Kaindl, H., Śmiałek, M., Svetinovic, D., Ambroziewicz, A., Bojarski, J., Nowakowski, W., Straszak, T., Schwarz, H., Bildhauer, D., Brogan, J.P., Mukasa, K.S., Wolter, K., Krebs, T.: Requirements specification language definition. Project Deliverable D2.4.1, ReDSeeDS Project (2007),
  8. 8.
    Metz, P., O’Brien, J., Weber, W.: Specifying use case interaction: Types of alternative courses. Journal of Object Technology 2(2), 111–131 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: ICSE - Future of SE Track, pp. 35–46 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0, formal/05-07-04 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group. Meta Object Facility Core Specification, version 2.0, formal/2006-01-01 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Som, S.S.: Beyond scenarios: Generating state models from use cases. In: Scenarios and state machines: models, algorithms and tools - ICSE 2002 Workshop, Orlando. Florida (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simons, A.J.H.: Use cases considered harmful. In: TOOLS Europe 1999. Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, Nancy, France, pp. 194–203. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Śmiałek, M.: Accommodating informality with necessary precision in use case scenarios. Journal of Object Technology 4(6), 59–67 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Śmiałek, M., Bojarski, J., Nowakowski, W., Straszak, T.: Scenario construction tool based on extended UML metamodel. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 414–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Śmiałek, M., Bojarski, J., Nowakowski, W., Straszak, T.: Writing coherent user stories with tool support. In: Baumeister, H., Marchesi, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) XP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3556, pp. 247–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van den Berg, K.G., Simons, A.J.H.: Control flow semantics of use cases in UML. Information and Software Technology 41(10), 651–659 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michał Śmiałek
    • 1
  • Jacek Bojarski
    • 1
  • Wiktor Nowakowski
    • 1
  • Albert Ambroziewicz
    • 1
  • Tomasz Straszak
    • 1
  1. 1.Warsaw University of Technology, WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations