<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription xmi:version="2.0" xmlns:xmi="http://www.omg.org/XMI" xmlns:org.eclipse.epf.uma="http://www.eclipse.org/epf/uma/1.0.6/uma.ecore" xmlns:epf="http://www.eclipse.org/epf" epf:version="1.5.1" xmi:id="_MqODAMM1EdmSIPI87WLu3g" name="uc_model,_0U6OEMlgEdmt3adZL5Dmdw" guid="_MqODAMM1EdmSIPI87WLu3g" changeDate="2005-07-07T23:20:06.005+0430" version="1.0.0">
  <sections xmi:id="_rLdVMAeREduWycDgioo5rg" name="Is it easy to understand what the system does by reviewing the model?" guid="_rLdVMAeREduWycDgioo5rg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;ul>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Does the Use-Case Survey provide a clear, concise overview of the purpose and functionality of the system?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Are there no long chains of &lt;i>include&lt;/i> relationships, such as when an included use case&amp;nbsp;includes other use&#xD;
        cases? These can obscure comprehension.&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Are&amp;nbsp;included use cases independent of the use cases that include them?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        If several use cases contain similar&amp;nbsp;subflows, have you investigated whether factoring this&amp;nbsp;common&#xD;
        behavior into an included use case will simplify the model?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
&lt;/ul></sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="__kgR8AeREduWycDgioo5rg" name="Have all use cases been identified?" guid="__kgR8AeREduWycDgioo5rg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;ul>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Do the use cases identified collectively account for all required behavior of the system?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Have all features identified in the Vision document for this iteration been addressed by at least one use case?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Have all nonfunctional requirements that must be satisfied by a specific use case been captured in that use case?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Have you verified that the use-case model contains no superfluous behavior (known as &quot;gold-plating&quot;)?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Is each concrete use case associated with at least one Actor, as it should be?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Is every Actor associated with at least one use case?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
&lt;/ul></sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_fknU0Jz1EduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Is the model consistent?" guid="_fknU0Jz1EduBcbjYtLtItQ">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;ul>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Is the system behavior consistent under the same conditions and with the same input?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
&lt;/ul></sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_KowpkAeSEduWycDgioo5rg" name="Are all relationships between use cases required?" guid="_KowpkAeSEduWycDgioo5rg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;ul>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Does each included use case make the model easier to understand, implement, and maintain?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Is each concrete use case (not an included use case) independent of other use cases?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
&lt;/ul>&lt;br />&#xD;
&lt;br /></sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_jyHeMAeTEduWycDgioo5rg" name="Are use-case packages used appropriately?" guid="_jyHeMAeTEduWycDgioo5rg">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;ul>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Have cross-package dependencies been reduced or eliminated to prevent model ownership conflicts&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Is packaging intuitive?&amp;nbsp; Does the packaging make the model easier to understand and implement?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
&lt;/ul></sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_i-S-ADeKEdu6VLD0YaVLog" name="Do all model elements have appropriate names?" guid="_i-S-ADeKEdu6VLD0YaVLog">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;ul>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Have you verified that no two use cases have the same name?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Does each Actor have a name that effectively describes that person's Role?&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
&lt;/ul></sectionDescription>
  </sections>
  <sections xmi:id="_IYRUkJz2EduBcbjYtLtItQ" name="Are individual use cases properly specified?" guid="_IYRUkJz2EduBcbjYtLtItQ">
    <sectionDescription>&lt;ul>&#xD;
    &lt;li>&#xD;
        Have you reviewed the quality of each&amp;nbsp;use case specification using the &lt;a class=&quot;elementLinkWithType&quot;&#xD;
        href=&quot;./../../../openup/guidances/checklists/use_case.html&quot; guid=&quot;_0kNwINk1Edq2Q8qZoWbvGA&quot;>Checklist: Use Case&lt;/a>.&#xD;
    &lt;/li>&#xD;
&lt;/ul></sectionDescription>
  </sections>
</org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription>
