RE: The semantics of requirements and principles


(1)    These definitions look ok to me.

(2)    I’m not sure I would want to agree with (2), though, although I am struggling to construct a counter-example. Do we need agree on (2)?

From: Frans Knibbe []
Sent: Saturday, 9 May 2015 12:51 AM
To: SDW WG Public List; Jeremy Tandy
Subject: The semantics of requirements and principles

Hello everyone (particularly Jeremy, on account of action 25<>),

In trying to fullfill action 24<> I have just made some entries in our glossary<>. I have added definitions of the term requirement<> and its subclasses functional requirement<> and 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<> and the term 'principles' as it has been used in this group.


Frans Knibbe
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 12:18:35 UTC