RE: The semantics of requirements and principles

Hi all,

I agree with the general definition of ‘functional requirement’ in the glossary. However, I have a question about the functional requirements we are in the process of formulating now. What is the ‘deliverable’ we are defining functional requirements for? Is the deliverable the Best Practice + the Time ontology + SSN ontology + deliverable related to Coverage Linked data, OR is the deliverable “Spatial data on the web”? To me it seems to be the latter (from the way the requirements are formulated in the UCR), but from the glossary definitions, especially the definition of Requirement, I get the idea it is the former.

Also, is it really true that non-functional requirements are always non-testable? E.g. performance is a non-functional, however it seems possible to me to test this.

Linda

Van: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Verzonden: woensdag 13 mei 2015 14:38
Aan: Kerry Taylor
CC: SDW WG Public List; Jeremy Tandy
Onderwerp: Re: The semantics of requirements and principles



2015-05-13 14:17 GMT+02:00 <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au<mailto: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<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<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://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<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>