Просмотр сообщений
В этом разделе можно просмотреть все сообщения, сделанные этим пользователем.
The Use Case Names are the "Names of Services" that "the System provides". They are very short. If we do not adopt a strict convention we would not know "with reference to what we are giving a particular name to Use Case".
If you name a use case "make payment" it is difficulty to say who makes payment to whom?
If the standard reference is the system, then it means that system makes payment to whoever (Actor) is connected to the Use Case.
If the Actor makes payment, then the system needs to receive the payment. With reference to the system the use case name should be "Enable Payment" or "Receive Payment"...the use case Goal in both the cases is "Actor makes payment to the System and obtains receipt"
My proposed convention is based on typical naming in banks. When a bank says "Payment" it means "Bank pays". "Receipts" means, "Bank receives".
If Use Case Goals are fully written as Use Case Names, then there is NO NEED for any convention.
We arrived at this convention after seeing that a lot of students and professionals are utterly confused in interpreting the Use Case Names. One can guess what is intended form commonsense but cannot infer from the Use Case Name.
