Re: The semantics of requirements and principles

2015-05-13 14:17 GMT+02:00 <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>:

>  All,
>
> (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)?
>

I think the acceptance of (2) has a bearing on how we handle Principles. Do
we need to distinguish Principles with these two definitions in place
(given the principle that simple = good)?  Is a Principle a kind of
non-functional requirement? Or is it something completely outside of the
realm of requirements?

Another thought is that it is possible to come up with additional types of
requirements (see this list
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_analysis#Types_of_Requirements>
for example). By saying we only consider two types we keep things simple.

Regards,
Frans


>  Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *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
> <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>
>
>
>



-- 
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>