Jerry,
Thanks for the interpretation of the process document statement. I tend to read into the words the meaning I had originally assumed when the document was written.
Hopefuly you will be able to join us on Wednesday and we can discuss your observations order and "down mode"
Thanks.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org] On Behalf Of thrasher at lexmark.com
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:31 PM
To: wims at pwg.org
Subject: WIMS> Re: WIMS Counter Spec Requirements...requirements..
Here's the text from the Process Document
Section 4.4
"Prior to completion of the first Working Draft, a clear statement of requirements for the standard to be produced is required. A requirements statement documents the best effort collection of known requirements on a particular protocol, interface, procedure or convention. The requirements statement is important as it leads to a clear, common understanding of the goals, provides a guide for developing the standard, and can be used as a final test to measure the completeness of the resulting specification. It is not necessary that the resulting standard meet every stated requirement, but the standard should be explicit about which requirements it does not meet, and why. Requirements may be updated during the development of the standard, as they become clearer. As with Charter (above), brainstorming, fact-finding and associate! d activities frequently accompany the process of requirements gathering. Often, at the beginning of a project, the Charter, Requirements and early versions of an initial Working Draft are all undergoing simultaneous revision until a clear direction emerges and the Charter and Requirements are formally approved. "
We clearly have already streached letter of the process document by not formally approving a statement of requirements prior to the completion of the first Working Draft. That being said I would think that a statement of requirements could contain both the use cases and scenarios that demonstrate the need for standardization of something as well as the particular design requirements placed on the development of the specification.
That being said I personally think that the use cases text that Ira has offered would be better placed as Section 1.1, followed by Section 1.2 Overview of Counters followed by Section 1.3 Design Requirements for Counters.
I also have a comment about the term "Down Mode"...........I'm not sure how long this term has been in the document but it's not actually used anywhere else in the document...and it should be "Down State" or something other than Mode in my opinion. I would think there are very few printer vendors that have a "User Mode", a "Maintenance Mode" and a "Down Mode" in thier respective products. And the first sentence of the definition is messed up as well......
Jerry Thrasher, Lexmark
wamwagner at comcast.net
Sent by: owner-wims at pwg.org
06/13/2005 01:09 PM
To: wims at pwg.org
cc:
Subject: WIMS> June 15 Conference Call
The next WIMS conference call is at 12 noon EDT on 15 June. Agenda will concentrate on Counter Spec:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/lcrc-wimscount10-20050603.pdfftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/lcrc-wimscount10-20050603rev.doc
Dial In: 1-866-365-4406
Passcode: 2635888#
This draft includes changes agreed to at last conference call although the "requirements" item still needs to be addressed. Ira's message of 7 June should be discussed as to need, required detail, and who will generate the new material.
I find the "requirements" requirement of the PWG process unclear with respect to whether these deal with requirements for the proposed items (Why have are counters needed ?) or Ira's interpretation that it is a detailed identification of the requirements of the proposed items. It would be helpful if Jerry (as protagonist for inclusion) could clarify his interpretation of the process document. At any rate, it seems odd having the more general use models (which touch on requirements for) in section 3 , while the design requirements are in section 1. It would seem that the "Why" should precede the how.
With the resolution of the "requirements" question, I believe that the WG group has gone well beyond addressing voiced last call issues, and although we would continue to strive toward perfection, I think we had better concentrate on wrapping this up and getting it ready for a vote.
Bill Wagner, Chairman, WIMS WG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20050613/d066631c/attachment-0001.html