Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax?
joel at rtems.org
Wed Jul 10 13:18:46 UTC 2019
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:34 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 08/07/2019 08:42, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I work currently on a requirements engineering section for RTEMS in the
> > RTEMS Software Engineering manual:
> > https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/eng/index.html
> > There should be some recommendations on how to formulate requirements.
> > What do you thing about the: Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax
> > (EARS)? Has someone used this before? Is it something to recommend?
> Just for reference, there is also a follow-up paper:
These papers were nice to read. I like their categorization of requirements
templates with preferred language. I think their rules on complexity are
probably on point.
Whether we agree or disagree with the specific words isn't as important as
words and templates.
FWIW we have had similar heated discussions on the FACE Technical Standard.
guys did a more formal job with patterns but we also ended up with
preferred wording patterns
I agree with having requirements templates/examples. I would take it
further than the generic
patterns of EARS. We need some for specific areas like configuration
parameters, set for
a Classic API method, set for a POSIX API method, a scheduler, etc.
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> E-Mail : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> PGP : Public key available on request.
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel