byrley@NTSC-74.ARPA ("Paul Byrley") (05/22/87)
------------------------------------------------------------------ msg below is forwarded as received, with permission of Mr. Savage ------------------------------------------------------------------ From: N74VAX::MAILER 17-MAY-1987 13:16 To: BYRLEY Subj: DDN Mail... Re: more on RFPs Return-Path: <ssc-vax!savage@beaver.cs.washington.edu> Received: from beaver.cs.washington.edu by ntsc-74.arpa ; 17 May 87 13:15:47 EST Received: by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.52.1/6.3) id AA17519; Sat, 16 May 87 02:10:07 PDT Return-Path: <ssc-vax!savage> Received: by ssc-vax (4.12/4.7) id AA12505; Fri, 15 May 87 18:49:10 pdt Date: Fri, 15 May 87 18:49:10 pdt From: ssc-vax!savage@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Lowell Savage) Message-Id: <8705160149.AA12505@ssc-vax> To: uw-beaver!byrley@ntsc-74.arpa Subject: Re: more on RFPs Paul, Here are a few humble suggestions for your straw man: > The methodologies to be used may include commercial software tools > or other modern improvements. [anything else?] This appears to be tool-oriented. For any given methodology, I can name several tools to suit it. (I.e. for Yourdon-DeMarco methodology there are Cadre's SA/Teamwork, Index Technologies' Excellerator, Nastec's CASE 2000, ...) Perhaps better wording would be something like "...to be used may include any published or commonly accepted methodologies or improvements on those methodologies". Now if you want to get electronically-readable versions of the documentation from these methodologies, then, obviously you need to have some other specification to nail that down. > ****[does anyone know how to talk about integration in a spec? > I want to include going from user requirements to top level > design as well as top lev. design, detailed design and code.]**** Perhaps by looking at the functionality you want to gain from that integration. For instance: "Information developed in each methodology should be automatically translated to information stored in other, downstream methodologies to the extent that the two methodologies are semantically equivalent. (I.e., suppose the top level design is done in one methodology and the next level is done in a second methodology. Then models of the design developed at the top level must be translated into models for the second methodology except for those pieces of information in the first methodology which cannot be expressed in the second methodology."; "Requirements, change control, and [other] tracing information shall be maintained across all methodologies used."; "Consistency between representations of the system shall be maintained across all methodologies (and tools?)". Essentially, the suggestion is to ask yourself "Why do I want all of this integrated?". The answer will be your spec. Good luck. I don't know if Boeing is bidding or will bid on whatever you are doing. It is possible that I may find myself on a proposal team if Boeing does try to bid. I certainly consider part of my job to be working out answers to these kinds of questions. I believe that I do my job best by sharing my ideas with others (including potential customers and competitors) since the evaluation of those answers makes me smarter, which makes me develop better answers. However, please note that these are my ideas. The Boeing Company has not necessarily adopted them, and I do not have the authority to speak for or represent The Boeing Company in opinions on them. I have offered them in good faith in the hope that they may be helpful. Lowell C. Savage (206) 773-0664 ------
byrley%ntsc-74.arpa@TAURUS.BITNET ("Paul Byrley") (05/22/87)
------------------------------------------------------------------
msg below is forwarded as received, with permission of Mr. Savage
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: N74VAX::MAILER 17-MAY-1987 13:16
To: BYRLEY
Subj: DDN Mail... Re: more on RFPs
Return-Path: <ssc-vax!savage@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Received: from beaver.cs.washington.edu by ntsc-74.arpa ; 17 May 87 13:15:47 EST
Received: by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.52.1/6.3)
id AA17519; Sat, 16 May 87 02:10:07 PDT
Return-Path: <ssc-vax!savage>
Received: by ssc-vax (4.12/4.7)
id AA12505; Fri, 15 May 87 18:49:10 pdt
Date: Fri, 15 May 87 18:49:10 pdt
From: ssc-vax!savage@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Lowell Savage)
Message-Id: <8705160149.AA12505@ssc-vax>
To: uw-beaver!byrley@ntsc-74.arpa
Subject: Re: more on RFPs
Paul,
Here are a few humble suggestions for your straw man:
> The methodologies to be used may include commercial software tools
> or other modern improvements. [anything else?]
This appears to be tool-oriented. For any given methodology, I can name
several tools to suit it. (I.e. for Yourdon-DeMarco methodology there are
Cadre's SA/Teamwork, Index Technologies' Excellerator, Nastec's CASE 2000,
...) Perhaps better wording would be something like "...to be used may
include any published or commonly accepted methodologies or improvements on
those methodologies". Now if you want to get electronically-readable versions
of the documentation from these methodologies, then, obviously you need to
have some other specification to nail that down.
> ****[does anyone know how to talk about integration in a spec?
> I want to include going from user requirements to top level
> design as well as top lev. design, detailed design and code.]****
Perhaps by looking at the functionality you want to gain from that
integration. For instance: "Information developed in each methodology should
be automatically translated to information stored in other, downstream
methodologies to the extent that the two methodologies are semantically
equivalent. (I.e., suppose the top level design is done in one methodology and
the next level is done in a second methodology. Then models of the design
developed at the top level must be translated into models for the second
methodology except for those pieces of information in the first methodology
which cannot be expressed in the second methodology."; "Requirements, change
control, and [other] tracing information shall be maintained across all
methodologies used."; "Consistency between representations of the system shall
be maintained across all methodologies (and tools?)". Essentially, the
suggestion is to ask yourself "Why do I want all of this integrated?". The
answer will be your spec.
Good luck. I don't know if Boeing is bidding or will bid on whatever you are
doing. It is possible that I may find myself on a proposal team if Boeing
does try to bid. I certainly consider part of my job to be working out
answers to these kinds of questions. I believe that I do my job best by
sharing my ideas with others (including potential customers and competitors)
since the evaluation of those answers makes me smarter, which makes me develop
better answers. However, please note that these are my ideas. The Boeing
Company has not necessarily adopted them, and I do not have the authority to
speak for or represent The Boeing Company in opinions on them. I have offered
them in good faith in the hope that they may be helpful.
Lowell C. Savage
(206) 773-0664
------