On 10/07/2019 16:10, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Replying to myself.. see below.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:18 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org
<mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:34 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@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?
>
>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224079416_Easy_approach_to_requirements_syntax_EARS
>
>
Just for reference, there is also a follow-up paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224195362_Big_Ears_The_Return_of_Easy_Approach_to_Requirements_Engineering
These papers were nice to read. I like their categorization of
requirements and providing
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 having those
words and templates.
I was asking around and apparently other OAR folks knew that EARS was
being adopted
as is by some of the large organizations we deal with. These
organizations do large safety
critical systems. With that knowledge, I am willing to say we should
adopt it. If there is
an authoritative reference, we need to find it.
I guess it will be difficult to find references. These large
organizations tend to keep things secret.
I found a reference that Intel uses it too:
https://www.iaria.org/conferences2013/filesICCGI13/ICCGI_2013_Tutorial_Terzakis.pdf
FWIW we have had similar heated discussions on the FACE Technical
Standard. The EARS
guys did a more formal job with patterns but we also ended up with
preferred wording patterns
for requirements.
I guess I need to suggest we consider adopting EARS for the next major
revision.
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.
These would be more detailed examples and still needed.
Yes, we should add specialized templates if necessary. I will propose to
use EARS in my draft.
--
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.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
