- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 06:34:42 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I agree with Andrew - the sentence is not needed and can be removed. lynne At 09:36 AM 11/2/2002, adt@freenet.co.uk wrote: >Regarding the definition of Use Cases in SpecGL (guideline #1) > - My AI to deal with the @@@ on the "system (specification)" text: > > Having re-read this final sentence I wonder what the purpose of it >is? > It says that a complete set of use cases specifies all the possible >uses of the system (specification). > > I have a couple of thoughts about this: > 1. It states the obvious, but in reverse order i.e. it's telling us > that if one describes all possible uses of the system/spec. then one >has a complete set of use cases. > > 2. Can a spec author/WG be expected to anticipate and describe > every possible use of a system/spec? > This is surely an exhaustive task and outside of the author's >scope anyway. It reminds me of the issue of conformance statements in >which there is a danger of trying to ring-fence the uses of the >spec in advance rather than leaving it to the creativity of the >developers > > So my first recommendation at a way to clean up this sentence is to >delete it! > > -Andrew
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 06:41:18 UTC