[Pgi-wg] requirement document

[David Wallom]

Hi Balazs,

Great, would it be possible to include in it then the kind of summary
(perhaps lifted from Andrews document) concise list of requirements. The
current draft has areas where it is unclear and unfinished.

Within requirements documents that I have had to code, design systems to
(ESA) these concise derivatives have normally been put into a table with a
clear naming structure etc so that when implementers/users have problems or
issues they are able to easily say requirement A1 (for example) is unclear
because of a, b, c d etc

David

On 20/05/2009 09:38, "Balazs Konya" <balazs.konya at hep.lu.se> wrote:

> dear David, Steven, others
> 
> David Wallom wrote:
> was [Pgi-wg] Promised document
>> HI Moreno,
>> 
>> Could we then have effort from Balazs, Morris or yourself to remove the
>> "This needs text", "Further info needed" sections etc. Personally I prefer
>> the extremely concise list within Andrews document. If we don't like that
>> can we strip the Strawman (which it is not a requirements document) of
>> extraneous text and get back to an explicit list of the requirements for
>> specific components.
>> 
>> David 
> 
> Steven wrote:
>> So what about Andrew's document? He has gone through and enumerated each
>> requirement in a particular area... why would you not use this SHORT
>> document to help determine where we have consensus and where we do not?
> 
>> Steven
> 
> 
> The group has been discussing the requirement document through quite some
> meetings. By now I consider the requirement document being accepted by the
> group. The document is THIS one:
> 
> http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15590?nav=1
> 
> and not any kind of derivatives of it.
> 
> The document is still a draft, it needs some further editing. Unfortunately,
> that editing work is pending because of the ever opening new discussion
> frontiers.
> 
> I encourage everyone to send corrections related to the *original* requirement
> document.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Balazs
> PGI co-chair