Feedback on OHS Requirements

From: Rod Welch (
Date: Tue Mar 13 2001 - 11:47:38 PST


Please see my letter today at..........



Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> [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:
> -EK]
> 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
> --
> +=== Eugene Eric Kim ===== ===== ===+
> | "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 - 17:58:03 PDT