2015-04-15 21:51 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>: > This puzzles me. It is after all the deliverables that form the scope. > Requirements that are not specifically “spatial” (e.g. valid RDF) may still > be important for developing good end products. > That is true. I think the question is how explicit we want to be about non-functional requirements (that almost by definition are out of scope). We could explain that although we are not listing non-functional requirements in the UCR document, we do recognize their importance. By doing that, we are at liberty to invoke non-functional requirements when needed. I remember this was discussed at the best practices meeting in Barcelona: shoud we explicitely describe quality requirements? I remember there seemed to be some agreement that this kind of requirement was too broad. We could look at this issue in this way: Would we run a risk if we do not make non-functional requirements explicit? If there is, we could add a chapter to the UCR document for listing the non-functional requirements. But up till now we have not done much to collect them. Regards, Frans > > Josh > > > On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > > > There is also the matter that most non-functional requirements would not > pass the scope test, because those requirements usually are not > specifically about spatiotemporal data on the web. > > > -- Frans Knibbe Geodan President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 21:14:22 UTC