[I'm moving this discussion to ohs-dev, as Rod seems to be asking
questions specifically relating to OHS development. His original e-mail
to unrev-ii can be found here:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Rod Welch wrote:
> Your recent work developing requirements for an OHS helps foster a culture of
> knowledge that aids the transition from IT to KM. How do your requirements for
> OHS correlate with Eric's submission of CDS specs on 000614....
Let me be glib for a moment, and ask you the same question. How do _you_
think my documents correlate to Eric's CDS specs?
There's definitely large overlap between our respective documents, even
more so than apparent, as I've shared many good design discussions with
Eric and benefitted from his insight. That's why I singled out Eric,
along with a few others, in my introduction.
However, the documents are not exactly the same. I made an effort to
describe a smaller, but more general system than Eric did by limiting the
scope of the system somewhat and by separating everything into three
elements -- the Use Cases, requirements, and scenarios. The first two
elements are abstractions of the system. Every requirements comes out of
at least one of the Use Cases. Every scenario can be satisfied with one
or more Use Cases. The Use Cases and requirements documents can be
refined, but I think the greatest added value is in fleshing out the
scenarios document. This will help give people a better picture of the
system as a whole.
I've also tried to be more formal in my software design methodology, so
technical commentary and lingo, for the most part, is outside of the Use
Cases, requirements, and scenarios. Technical stuff should go into a
specification, pieces of which exist in various documents here and there.
I've put together a lot of stuff that could be used as the basis of a
specs document; I hope to post this later this week.
> Recall that the next day, in the meeting on 000615 you proposed that the team
> adopt Eric's specs as the OHS requirements.....
Your records are inaccurate. At that meeting, I asked Eric why he called
his requirements "CDS" and not "OHS." His response was that he wasn't
sure if his requirements were the same as the ones for the OHS, and that
he didn't know the difference between the terms "OHS" and "DKR." I
suggested at the time that he just call his stuff "OHS requirements"
anyway, but I was in no official position to sanction them as the
"official" OHS requirements, and I'm currently in no position to do that
for my own set of proposed requirements.
> ....and on 001015 the team had completed review, and you planned to submit
> comments OA 001030......
> Have those comments been distributed, and are they incorporated into your latest
> notice of OHS requirements? Has anything been added or deleted?
This is also inaccurate. Your record states that I claimed the "team" had
"formally reviewed" Eric's requirements. Who is this team? Who formally
reviewed what? Frankly, I don't remember doing anything associated with
this project "formally."
Let me reiterate that the stuff I have posted is an unofficial attempt to
paint a picture of the project, which could potentially be used as the
basis of a more formal set of requirements documents. But this is not my
decision to make. As I've said before, I'd love to get feedback from
other people as to whether the picture I've pained jives with the pictures
they have in their heads.
-- +=== Eugene Eric Kim ===== email@example.com ===== http://www.eekim.com/ ===+ | "Writer's block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they | +===== can have an excuse to drink alcohol." --Steve Martin ===========+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 17:58:00 PDT