[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [wsia] FW: Updated Requirements Document
FYI -----Original Message----- From: Ravi Konuru [mailto:rkonuru@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:10 AM To: Eilon Reshef Cc: akropp@epicentric.com; Charles F Wiecha; kevin.brinkley@intel.com; mmartin@certivo.net; 'Ravi Konuru'; Srinivas.Vadhri@commerceone.com; 'Timothy N. Jones' Subject: RE: Updated Requirements Document This is a good input for the overall group and reflects the thoughts in the use-case subgroup that are consumable by other WSIA members and provides food for thought. Suggest that one of you forward it to the WSIA mailing list. cheers, Ravi Konuru eBusiness Tools and Frameworks, IBM Research office: 914-784-7180, tieline 8-863-7180; fax -3804 "Eilon Reshef" <eilon.reshef@webc To: "'Timothy N. Jones'" <tim@crossweave.com> ollage.com> cc: Charles F Wiecha/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS, <kevin.brinkley@intel.com>, Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Ravi Konuru/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, 04/15/2002 10:13 <akropp@epicentric.com>, <mmartin@certivo.net>, PM <Srinivas.Vadhri@commerceone.com> Subject: RE: Updated Requirements Document I think that's a great idea - I didn't do it mainly due to lack of time, and I am sure that for the next versions there will be more brainpower behind the document so it's going to be somewhat easier time-wise. As for a "requirements creep", I hope that in the upcoming F2F we will be able to go over the requirements, and decide whether the keep each one, postpone it for a future version, or prune it completely. While editing the requirements, it was more than clear that there's repetition and sometimes controversial requirements. In particular, it was clear that: 1. Not all the requirements can certainly be met if we want to release a spec this year. We will need to leave some for a later version of the spec. 2. Some of the requirements were high-level, and some very low-level. We will need make a clear distinction, first agree on the high-level ones, and then discuss the low-level ones when we get to the actual APIs. In general, my tendency was to put everything in, even if I did not understand all of it, just so that we have a common base for discussion. Eilon -----Original Message----- From: Timothy N. Jones [mailto:tim@crossweave.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:41 PM To: Eilon Reshef Cc: Charles F Wiecha; kevin.brinkley@intel.com; Rich Thompson; Ravi Konuru; akropp@epicentric.com; mmartin@certivo.net; Srinivas.Vadhri@commerceone.com Subject: Re: Updated Requirements Document I have a process question: do we want to indicate the source of each requirement (such as the motivating use case)? I am thinking of the issue of "requirements creep" where something not strictly necessary manages to sneak in; if we include the source it should be possible to audit the requirements and reconcile each with one or more use cases, for example. Similarly it seems that we should be able to trace back from each use case to one or more scenarios. Regards, Tim
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC