Re: Use cases and activity diagrams

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Mon Feb 21 2005 - 20:06:45 CST

Hello Nils:

Again, how do we access what has been written about OVC in the Wikipedia?
(hint, there down for a while as they had an electrical failure) Yes, I did
visit them yesterday and entered the Open Voting Consortium string without
any hits. What am I missing here?

Just a little side thought: Um, software design hardly has a monopoly on
graphical analysis or presentation. Pythagorous is said to have done his
a**2 + b**2=c**2 proof using tiles. I can assure you that graphical
analaysis is still used (although nomographic style graphical solutions not
quite as much) in most of the other engineering fields.

Yes, there is a lot of software and process engineering going on here but
there is also a great deal of work on fraud avoidance, working with
govermental leaders and so forth. I do find the application of engeineering
to this problem the most interesting but I have to keep reminding myself to
not loose sight of the other challenges.

To your suggestion: I've went to your sources and they do look quite
interesting. Could you perhaps demonstrated to the rest of us how a person
might apply this? I am thinking about the start up, operation and close
down of a polling place using the OVC system. Kurt has done a terrific job
in describing this in words in the FAQ. However, it still is challenging to
explain to others. Do you think you might use this approach to make a
corresponding graphic?

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

Nils Paz wrote:
> In current systems architecture, the engineer's discussions with the
> client
> and research of other references produce a dialog in terms of
> scenarios,
> use cases, activity diagrams, and others. The scenarios are captured
> with a
> formal tool (such as IBM/Rational ROSE) or other less expensive tools
> using
> the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Since UML is a standard accepted
> widely, it is a useful tool for documenting and depicting
> diagramatically
> the dynamic and static machine states of the system. Currently, Object
> Oriented software houses use UML to design and generate the
> elementary code
> and then the algorithmic parts of the code are coded by engineers.
> Some OO
> houses only capture the architecture with the diagrams and generate
> code by
> hand using the diagrams as a guide. Others perform roundtrip
> engineering
> whereby they generate code from the class diagram and from legacy code
> reverse engineer the OO class diagram from the legacy code.
> Before any code is written, system engineers spend a great deal of
> time
> putting scenarios down in some sort of diagram (activity, use cases,
> state
> machines) which provides them with basis of an architecture which
> they then
> pass on to the software engineers. Within DoD, there is a push to use
> DoD's
> Architecture framework (DoDAF) such that operational view and system
> view
> are captured in some formal way. Whether one use UML or not, The
> diagrams
> end up being very useful for guiding, documenting and (maybe)
> generating
> code.
> All the discussions generated in OVC are of the system engineering
> ilk. We
> have scenario discussions of machines and voters under different
> conditions. I am suggesting that we capture these formally such that
> any
> software or system engineer can look at the diagrams and understand
> the
> effort. The wikipaedia is an excellent start but unfortunately you
> have to
> read a tremendous amount before you understand the work already
> discussed.
> As a picture is worth a thousand ... words...Diagrams communicate
> efficiently and effectively the intentions of the group.
> "Ed Kennedy"
> <> To:
> "Open Voting Consortium discussion list"
> <> Sent by:
> cc: ovc-discuss-bounces@listma Subject:
> Re: [OVC-discuss] Use cases and activity diagrams
> 02/18/2005 08:37 PM
> Please respond to Open
> Voting Consortium
> discussion list
> Hello Nils:
> Um. We're in the Wikipedia? Frightenign thought if true. A quick
> visit to the wikipedia turned up nothing obvious. Perhaps you could
> provide
> me with a link? Also, could you please give me a little more
> information
> on
> what are use cases or activity diagrams? I'm a civil engineer so my
> discipline may call it something entirerly different. I'm all for a
> well
> documented and coherent architecture but I'm also for Mom and Apple
> Pie!
> Thanks, Ed Kennedy
> Nils Paz wrote:
>> I know that the fruit of all our discussions are deposited in the
>> wikipeadia as a record. Are we making any effort to place any
>> scenarios we have discussed within use cases or activity diagrams
>> such that they can be distilled into a well documented and coherent
>> architecture?
>> The effort would benefit all and certainly aid in our discussions.
>> There are some free tools available that are simple to install and
>> easy to learn. We could all participate in building the different
>> scenarios we discuss and embellish them as other contribute ideas.
>> They can be saved and pasted to our emails and archives in order move
>> the work forward. The tool I am aware is UMLET (based on UML 2.0)
>> ? Regards
>> Nils Paz
>> _______________________________________________
>> OVC discuss mailing lists
>> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun Feb 27 17:17:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 17:17:13 CST