Webel: SysML for MBSE: The frequent recommendation that each UseCase have at least one "primary" scenario is a very useful and highly recommended CONVENTION (only). But it is not actually enforced by the SysML1.7 or UML2.5.1 metamodels or specifications.

Icon class
icon_class
far fa-sticky-note
icon_class_computed
far fa-sticky-note
Note kind
UML keywords
SysMLv1.x keywords
Keywords

Having at least one scenario, typically called the primary scenario, is a common and very sensible modelling convention/recipe, but it's not part of the SysMLv1.7 or UML specs, which don't mention this as part of the metamodels; a scenario is just a useful concept. Try searching the SysML and UML specs for 'scenario' and 'primary'!

That said, a UseCase without at least one (primary) scenario is not much use. There are various ways of relating such a primary scenario to/from a UseCase, but you won't find a 'scenario' field in the spec box in the MagicDraw/Cameo SysML tools.

A scenario is typically also described by text, which can be carried in various places in the model, such as on the element documentation for the element that is used for the scenario modelling.

The SysMLv1 spec HSUV sample just shows Refine relationships for drill-downs, such as Sequence Diagrams for Interactions. A SysML Activity with swimlanes works well with SysML Allocations, but it is not suitable for indicating timings. Pros and cons. Your best choice depends on the system, your domain, and the stakeholder audience also.

BTW: A SysMLv1 Refine can be used for many other purposes - not use for refinement of UseCases - and a UseCase may even Refine a Requirement (often as an alternative to Trace).

TAKE WAY: Do create at least one scenario for each UseCase; there are various good ways to do it with pros and cons and there is more than one to navigate from the UseCase to the chosen scenario Behavior and its Diagram.
Visit also:
Relates to
Related notes
Related notes (backlinks)
Related snippets (extracts)
Visit also
Visit also (backlinks)