Re: [RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and Requirements

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I was reading too much into the link to the "default 
>> behaviour" requirement. I assume there is then a need for someone to 
>> edit a page on a conformance model requirement.
> 
> I just modified the "default behaviour" proposed requirement to make it 
> more like a requirement and less like a proposed design [1]. Does that 
> answer your concerns?

Yes, thanks.

> Default behaviour and conformance model are 
> somewhat dual, aren't they?

Only somewhat. You could have a conformance model without any notion of 
per-ruleset/rule/element default behaviour other than a global "can't 
process".

Dave