Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-13248

Copy DMSR requirements into L1 System Req document

    Details

    • Story Points:
      3
    • Team:
      Architecture

      Description

      At the DMLT face to face meeting in November 2017 it was requested that the Level 1 requirements in DMSR (as defined by LDM-148) be flowed down into LDM-602 to seed the L1 System Requirements. This ticket is to do that flowdown in the MagicDraw model and to issue a first draft of LDM-602.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            There are two ways to approach the resolution of the ticket. The first is to revisit the product tree to requirement mapping to ensure that we all know exactly which requirements in LSE-61 should appear in this flowed down requirements document. We were doing this when we thought that requirements verification would occur at the product level and that verifying at that level would automatically verify LSE-61. With the creation of LDM-639 (RFC-495) it is not entirely clear any more that copying requirements from LSE-61 directly into a LDM requirements document gains us anything. A scenario where we verify LSE-61 directly and leave product verification to requirements that have been specifically written for them as a refinement of the LSE-61 requirement (such as the jointcal or butler requirements) seems like a more tractable way forward.

            If you, Wil O'Mullane, Leanne Guy, and Gabriele Comoretto agree with that approach I'm happy to retire this ticket and remove them from the DM model in MagicDraw.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - There are two ways to approach the resolution of the ticket. The first is to revisit the product tree to requirement mapping to ensure that we all know exactly which requirements in LSE-61 should appear in this flowed down requirements document. We were doing this when we thought that requirements verification would occur at the product level and that verifying at that level would automatically verify LSE-61. With the creation of LDM-639 ( RFC-495 ) it is not entirely clear any more that copying requirements from LSE-61 directly into a LDM requirements document gains us anything. A scenario where we verify LSE-61 directly and leave product verification to requirements that have been specifically written for them as a refinement of the LSE-61 requirement (such as the jointcal or butler requirements) seems like a more tractable way forward. If you, Wil O'Mullane , Leanne Guy , and Gabriele Comoretto agree with that approach I'm happy to retire this ticket and remove them from the DM model in MagicDraw.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            A scenario where we verify LSE-61 directly and leave product verification to requirements that have been specifically written for them as a refinement of the LSE-61 requirement (such as the jointcal or butler requirements) seems like a more tractable way forward.

            I'm happy with this approach, but I agree that we should make sure that Wil O'Mullane, Gabriele Comoretto and Leanne Guy are too.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - A scenario where we verify LSE-61 directly and leave product verification to requirements that have been specifically written for them as a refinement of the LSE-61 requirement (such as the jointcal or butler requirements) seems like a more tractable way forward. I'm happy with this approach, but I agree that we should make sure that Wil O'Mullane , Gabriele Comoretto and Leanne Guy are too.
            Hide
            womullan Wil O'Mullane added a comment -

            It seems we pretty much agreed this in the ARCH standup today.

            Show
            womullan Wil O'Mullane added a comment - It seems we pretty much agreed this in the ARCH standup today.
            Hide
            gcomoretto Gabriele Comoretto added a comment -

            OK for me also.

            Show
            gcomoretto Gabriele Comoretto added a comment - OK for me also.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Given the lack of dissent, I'll close as Won't Fix.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Given the lack of dissent, I'll close as Won't Fix.

              People

              • Assignee:
                tjenness Tim Jenness
                Reporter:
                tjenness Tim Jenness
                Reviewers:
                John Swinbank
                Watchers:
                Eric Bellm, Gabriele Comoretto, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Tim Jenness, Wil O'Mullane
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                6 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel