Use Case Clause Examples
A Use Case clause defines the specific situations, scenarios, or purposes for which a product, service, or agreement is intended to be used. It typically outlines the permitted applications or contexts, such as specifying that a software license is valid only for internal business operations or that a product may only be used in non-commercial research. By clearly delineating the acceptable uses, this clause helps prevent misuse, sets expectations for both parties, and reduces the risk of disputes over unauthorized or unintended applications.
Use Case. The purpose of tokens in 'read' and 'bring online' primarily is to steer data streams or better to steer the location of files. The space reservation aspect of tokens is of minor interest. An example is that the same dataset may be needed by the reprocessing system as well as for FTS export or user analysis. It would be envisioned that this file is served to the various competing processes by different locations in the system mainly not to interfere or slowdown expensive reprocessing.
Use Case. In order to evaluate the prototype, a dedicated server was setup in AUTH data center with the following specifications: Operating System: Windows 2008 Server 64bit CPU: 2 Xeon CPUs 2.5Ghz RAM: 4 GB Hard Disk: 20GB (SAS) plus 60GB (SATA) Remote access and networking were also established and the prototype application was installed and tested continuously during the last stages of development from September 2011 to November 2011. The final test was conducted from the 22nd to the 24th of November 2011. A ping server with high traffic was monitored during this time and 2 URL filters were set a) *▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇* and
Use Case. 3 – Heat transfer from three particles This use case has been selected to test the solver’s ability to model multiple particles that are separated by a comparably large distance (see Figure 3). Also, for this specific flow configuration, reference data from literature was available. As can be seen from Figure 4, the agreement with both sources of literature data agree very well with our predictions for the force and heat flux experienced by the individual particles. Heat Flux, d = 2.dp
Use Case. Safe Replication CLARIN/MPL -- SIGMA/UiO – CINECA
Use Case. 5 – Heat transfer in a fixed periodic particle bed This case is the most relevant one, since it is closest to the final application of the DNS solver, i.e., the prediction of heat and mass transfer in a randomly-arranged particle bed (mono-sized particles). Unfortunately, for this situation, it was very challenging to generate a body-fitted mesh. Hence, the results are only compared to literature data (see Figure 7). As can be seen, the agreement with the results of ▇▇▇▇ is excellent, whereas the more recent results of Deen et al. are somewhat below our predictions. Also, the newly developed correlation (see next Chapter for details) approximates the predicted Nusselt numbers reasonably well, indicating that the chosen functional form for the Nusselt numbers seems to be appropriate.
Use Case. This language targets residents of certain counties. This language should be used instead of restrictions for residents of a certain state.
Use Case. Notification Service (Co-Net Service The reminder of this service is after 1 hour. Is this acceptable for you? Caregiver/ elderly
1. Is the system complex? Yes/no and why? How can we improve? 2. Are you motivated to use the system? Yes/no and why? 3. Do you think the system is useful? Yes/no and why? 4. Are you satisfied with a: the services, b: look of avatar. If not what should we changed? As discussed above, lessons learned from the previous two pre-trials were incorporated into the Second Round of Second Pre-Trial. During the First Round of Second Pre-Trial, both seniors and caregivers criticised specifically the length of the questionnaires used. Thus, we chose to reduce it for the Second Round of the Second Pre-Trial, by removing:
(1) the EASE OF USE questionnaire (this concept could considered as being measured by the SUS score) and (2) the items in the questionnaire D related to the user interface; which are not related with the indicators of the project. Although 8 items were removed from Part D of the questionnaire compared with the previous two trials, a global score comparison can still be done. Furthermore, this part can also be analysed separately and focused on the Avatar, which is the important part of the Miraculous-Life project, instead of the interface appearance. PART A – SYSTEM USABILITY SCALE (SUS) [10 items; same as the first pre-trial and first round of second pre-trial] PART B – MOTIVATION IN USING THE SYSTEM [3 items; same as first round of second pre-trial] PART C – SYSTEM USEFULNESS [12 items; same as the first pre-trial and first round of second pre-trial] PART D – AVATAR [8 items; same as first pre-trial and first round of second pre- trial. 8 items were removed] PART E – USER SATISFACTION [8 items; same as the first pre-trial and first round of second pre-trial] The mapping between the questionnaires, the objectives and the indicators of the project is described below:
Use Case. Autopilot Drone (AD) Overview
Use Case. Upload and Register a File
Use Case. Modular Arm (MA)