rough 1st draft of Rqts Doc

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Hi all,

This is a quick job, but I wanted to get something up and on the Wednesday 
agenda:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/download.php/25996/WebCGM_21_Requirements.html

I took the superset defined in the old "...2+ Requirements..." (Seattle 
vintage) and started cutting it down to make 2.1 Rqts Doc.  Working mostly 
from 10/24/07 minutes etc.

I think it is not bad as far as capturing the state of our decisions (and 
indecisions), but it does require more work.  What we need to do is have a 
pretty solid one posted within a month or so -- the WebCGM WG needs to be 
able to point to a requirements doc in its re-chartering, for example.

A couple of issues:

1.) I didn't really know how to present the stuff (what format).  I just 
sort of drifted into the Synopsis/Discussion/Resolution format.  But ... 
that doesn't actually reflect the "Requirements and use cases" title very well.

So I think it is worth discussing, whether this is a good format.  It is 
already more usefully informative than the 2.0 Requirements Document, but 
that doesn't mean we've got it right yet.  Look at how un-detailed and 
vague that document [2] was...)

[2] http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/WebCGM_20_Requirements.html

2.) Animation.  I broke it out into 3 pieces.  I'm unsure whether that's 
the right approach, but that's the way we have been treating it in the 
"dirty dozen" list, etc.  So we could go one of several ways here:  3-piece 
like that;  or 1-piece like Dave's 10/24/07 minutes; or 3 sub-pieces under 
a single statement-of-requirement:  "Synopsis:  There is a requirement from 
aerospace to be able to show movement in a CGM." .

3.) Use Case Detail and AIs.  Should we strengthen the use case 
content?  If "yes" There is more stuff out there in our archives.  I just 
haven't pulled it all together.  If "yes", one idea might be:  divide up 
the dozen items amongst 6 "volunteers", and have each person take two 
sections.  The AI is to critique the section, and dig out more of the use 
case stuff that we have already discussed.  (And maybe give back draft new 
content for the section.)  I could integrate this latter stuff upon my 
return, and we'd then have a pretty good document, I think.

If "no" ... that's probably an acceptable answer also.  We already say more 
than we did in the 2.0 Requirements [2].

-Lofton.