Re: [SysML Forum] SysML Requirements - Name Attribute of a Requirement

[Stephan Roth]

Hi MattS,

a good practice is to choose a name for a requirement that is a kind of summary or abstraction of the detailed description which is assigned to the "text" attribute.

For example: if you have a requirement "The system shall wipe the windscreen automatically if waterdrops are detected on its surface.", a good name could be "Rain detection".

If your system shall be compliant to a standard, a norm, etc., the requirements text could be like "The system shall be compliant to ISO 61508 'Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems'" and its name is "ISO 61508 Compliancy".

Don't use the name just for a requirements category. This should be done by introducing new attributes with the help of the stereotype mechanism.

Hope that helps a bit.

Regards,

Stephan

2012/9/22 MattS <bddib...@gmail.com>

I am learning SySML.  I am attempting to build a requirements diagram and then build relations between requirements and model elements.

Questions:

1) What are some good practices for Naming requirements?
2) How is the "Name" of a requirement typically used by stakeholders?

Background:  I am currently struggling with how detailed to make the name.  Not too detailed and not too vague. I either end up with a detailed repeat of the requirement text or a simple two word phase that becomes a "category" for a collection of similar requirements.  I have not been able to reach a just right name, just yet. If I have a better understanding of how the requirement name is used by stakehoders, I may be able to better identify naming standards.

Thanks for your help.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SysML Forum" group.
Public website: http://www.SysMLforum.com
To post to this group, send email to sysml...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sysmlforum+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sysmlforum?hl=en_US?hl=en

[Jack Ring]

Hang in there, kessel. Roth's recommendation conflicts with the findings in Dr. Tom Love's dissertation circa 1975.

On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:24 AM, kesselhaus wrote:

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:15:38 AM UTC+2, Stephan Roth wrote:

Hi MattS,

a good practice is to choose a name for a requirement that is a kind of summary or abstraction of the detailed description which is assigned to the "text" attribute. 

For example: if you have a requirement "The system shall wipe the windscreen automatically if waterdrops are detected on its surface.", a good name could be "Rain detection".

I think, that giving an requirement a name is kind of hard, since e.g. "Rain Detection" already is somewhat vague or general, considering the fact, that there might be more requirements for rain detection. At least, when I compare that with the SW Requirements Spec I'm handling right now.

Requirements should be small, simple, almost atomic.

e.g There could be another requirement "The rain detection shall start after IG-ON and engine running and stop at IG-OFF."

I wonder, if the "ID" wouldn't be  a better "Name", but that would make one of it obsolete.

The next question on that topic is, where does the ID come from? (Considering the Automotive world, requirements are usually handled within DOORS).

But without an DOORS gateway, or being offline, who is giving unique IDs?

If your system shall be compliant to a standard, a norm, etc., the requirements text could be like "The system shall be compliant to ISO 61508 'Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems'" and its name is "ISO 61508 Compliancy".

That makes me worry about the requirements quality. If I just reference compliance to the ISO spec. what are the actual requirements for your system, to fulfill that spec.?

 

Don't use the name just for a requirements category. This should be done by introducing new attributes with the help of the stereotype mechanism.

Hope that helps a bit.

For me not really, sorry. :(

 

Regards,

kessel