Re: [ormf-dev] What else do we want to do

[Flavelle Ballem <fballem@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perfect - I'm good!

On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 12:33 +0100, Barbara Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
> Hi Flavelle.
> 
> Apologies for the delay in this reply.
> 
> Yes, Joel and I have been giving a lot of thought about other  
> requirements types, as well as traceability. A good deal of the  
> current architecture was designed with generalisation to various types  
> of requirements in mind. However, as we have pointed out in other  
> threads, the move to join Eclipse and propose ORMF means that more  
> flexibility and, above all, capacity for extension by third parties is  
> required, and those are the reasons why we think the rework of the  
> core components we are embarking upon is needed.
> 
> Although thinking about other types of requirements is very important,  
> Joel and I think that the first and foremost step is to solidify our  
> vision for the core and THEN use other types of requirements as a tool  
> to verify whether or not our core is sufficiently generic and  
> extensible. So the discussion around other types of requirements and  
> their specifications could start at that point.
> 
> Let me know if any of this is still not clear.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> B.
> 
> On 19 Sep 2008, at 22:40, Flavelle Ballem wrote:
> 
> > Hi All:
> >
> > So we will have useme. We have other types of requirements, in  
> > addition
> > to use cases. Have we given thought to how we want to capture those?
> > Also, do we have thoughts around how we implement traceability among  
> > the
> > various requirements? And do we know, at the end of the day, what we
> > want to be able to get out of the requirements?
> >
> > Is this the appropriate time to be asking these questions, and have  
> > they
> > already been asked and answered (in which case, I missed something,
> > which would not be the first time).
> >
> > Just asking - in case I've missed something along the way. If I  
> > haven't
> > missed something, then should we start thinking about these things. If
> > we should start thinking about these things, then what's the best  
> > way to
> > start the discussion around building the specifications.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Flavelle
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ormf-dev mailing list
> > ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ormf-dev mailing list
> ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
>