The semantics of requirements and principles

Hello everyone (particularly Jeremy, on account of action 25
<http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/25>),

In trying to fullfill action 24
<http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/24> I have just made some
entries in our glossary
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms>. I have added
definitions of the term requirement
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms#requirement> and
its subclasses functional requirement
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms#functional_requirement>
and non-functional requirement
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms#non-functional_requirement>
.

At this point, I would like to ask the group members the following:

   1. Do you agree with the definitions?
   2. We could say that functional requirements and non-functional
   requirements together form the complete set of possible requirements. Could
   there be practical problems with such a viewpoint?

I have not added a definition for 'principles' yet, because I thought it
would be smart to agree on the definitions of requirements first, and see
if there is a need for additional terms later. If there is, I do see a
resemblence between the term business requirements
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_requirements> and the term
'principles' as it has been used in this group.

Regards,
Frans


-- 
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>