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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsia message

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

Subject: [wsia] FW: Updated Requirements Document


-----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.

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>, 
Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Ravi Konuru/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,              
                      04/15/2002 10:13
<akropp@epicentric.com>, <mmartin@certivo.net>,


                                                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
   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
   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.


-----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;
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.


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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC