Re: proposed UCR outline

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> [mostly for UCR editors]
> 
> UCR is getting rather disorganized.   It's kind of unreadable.
> 
> Here's a proposal for how to organize it, motivated in part by a
> discussion with David yesterday, after the meeting ended.  If people
> like this organization, we can start to figure out how to get the text
> to look like this.  (I think this is all editorial stuff that doesn't
> need Working Group approval, except that the WG needs to actually be
> able to read & understand the content it approved in the meeting.)

Seems good to me with a couple of minor caveats ..

> 1.  Introduction
> 
>       ?    what are rules?   why standardize?   some history?
> 
> 2.  Use Cases
> 
>       for each use case:
> 
>         title
>         text
>         links to requirements, maybe CSFs
>         (later: links to test cases)
>         (maybe: links to more detailed versions on the wiki for people
>         really trying to solve a problem like this)
> 
> 3.  Requirements
>    
>      define our terms ("covers", ...)
> 
>      for each requirement:  (in alphabetic order by title)
> 
>         short title (no more than 40 characters - used for links)
>         statement (1 paragraph)
>         links to use cases and CSFs which motivate this requirement
>         additional comments
>         either: approved for phase 1 // under consideration for phase 2
>             (maybe "under consideration" items don't appear in WD?)
>             (maybe group by this flag, and then alphabetize within groups)
> 
> 4.  Goal Analysis

Goals not Goal Analysis.

I'd put the goals/CSF before the requirements. To me those are our top 
level statements of intention (hence all my hassling about a fourth goal 
:-)) not just a way to group the requirements.

> 
>        description of Critical Success Factors process / terminology
> 
>        diagram -- maybe a imagemap with links to appropriate
>                   descriptions (maybe even as pop-up on mouse-over if
>                   someone feels motivated)
> 
>        for each goal
>              short title
>              statement 
>              link to CSFs (implicit in outline form)
> 
>        for each CSF
>              short title
>              statement
>              link to goals (implicit in outline-form)
>              link to requirements, and maybe CSF's
> 	
> 5.  Coverage (RIFRAF)
> 
>        for each discriminator:
>               short title
>               explanation, including alternative vocabulary
> 	      flag: in phase 1, unresolved whether in phase 1, not in phase 1
>               maybe some kind of grouping/clustering/hierarchy
>                  (as in current draft)
>               
>        later (WD3?) - for each rule system/rule language, and for 
>        each dialect, how does it match up to the discriminators?
>        (this would be a large table, or perhaps a set of tables, with
>        one per dialect).

A table against the raw discriminators is likely to be fairly confusing.
We have a lot of discriminators already and more to come. I think we'll 
need to some significant grouping and refinement (some sort of informal 
human-guided principle components analysis [*]) and should tabulate just 
against those summary discriminators.

Dave

[*] And yes, I know that the FCA that Hassan has mentioned a few times 
is somewhat related to this though without lots of classified instances 
I think a human guided grouping is likely to be more useful for the 
document.

Received on Saturday, 10 June 2006 16:36:08 UTC