OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

rights-requirements message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [rights-requirements] Requirements Analysis

Title: Requirements Analysis

Hello All:
Per out last discussion, here is the revised analysis document set. Some quick notes:
1. For those that were not at the last call, I am using the oebf document as the first analysis. It is meant to flush out the process before we proceed with the other documents and was chosen simply as a sample document set.

2. I added definitions of system and rights language requirements to the word document.
3. After reviewing the oebf requirements in its entirety, I reparsed the set using the definitions. The results are in the matrix.

4. I was very hesitant of changing the wording of the raw requirements. I was also very strict on whether the raw requirement was that of a system or of a rights language. If the requirement was a system requirement, I reworded it slightly to be a rights language requirement; basically that a rights language must be able to express the action that the specific requirement was requesting of the system. With this process, the sample requirement that we discussed during the meeting is actually a "system requirement".

Original raw requirement:
OEBF 2.1.1
DRM shall allow for required acknowledgements (for example, copyright notices or corporate logos) to be specified as a consequence of using data.

Transposed to a Rights Language Requirement:
The rights language shall be able to express, as a consequence of using data, the required acknowledgements (for example, copyright notices or corporate logos).

5. There were some that did not cleanly transfer such as OEBF 2.8.2:
DRM shall make buying and borrowing electronic publications easier than buying and borrowing the equivalent publications in print.

In this case, I noted that no transposition was possible. There were only 2 of these in the entire set.

6. The "Both" category was used for where in the Raw Requirements, both system and rights language requirements were explicitly stated.

7. I also put the revision history in the word document. I will figure out a naming convention to link the document and the spreadsheet.

We can discuss this during this Wednesday's call.


<<RLTC Collected Requirements.doc>> <<Collected-Analysis.xls>>

Attachment: RLTC Collected Requirements.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: Collected-Analysis.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC