From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!NTSC-74.ARPA!byrley From: byrley@NTSC-74.ARPA ("Paul Byrley") Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: reply to my RFP issue 2 Message-ID: <8705222149.AA28425@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Fri, 22-May-87 14:12:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8705222149.AA28425 Posted: Fri May 22 14:12:00 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 17:24:01 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: "Paul Byrley" Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet List-Id: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: 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: 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 ------