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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a0fd7f96069214f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-16 07:05:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Documentation Standards Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:53:37 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9lgj93$b17$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997970019 11303 136.170.200.133 (16 Aug 2001 13:53:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2001 13:53:39 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11991 Date: 2001-08-16T13:53:39+00:00 List-Id: IIRC, one of the places that had some sort of "commercial standard" was the IEEE. However, like most orgs, they are not going to give it to you free of charge. (What? Have they never heard of the GPL? :-) It might be available at some nominal cost - I'd check their web site. ACM might also have some similar standards - again, probably not available for the cost of a download. I used to live and breathe 2167a and I got my copies of the standard from the company library where it was shown to a xerox machine once too often. I don't know what sort of copyright restrictions are/were on it, but I know that most defense contractors thought it was O.K. for their libraries to make photocopies. Maybe you can find someone who works for a DoD related org to show one to the xerox machine for you and drop it in the mail? 2167a got a lot of criticism from various sources, but IMHO it was not a bad standard. Somewhere in the DIDs you had a place to file any artifact of the software development process and with a reasonably creative interpretation of the standard you could make for yourself just about any practical development process you liked. You could tailor out what you didn't need rather easily - although this was one of the criticisms - that it specified too much and that it would be hard to get permission to tailor things out. (We didn't have too much trouble, but some contract officers went to the Les Miserables School Of Standards Enforcement.) If I needed to put together a process for software development, I'd still consider 2167a a good starting point - tailoring it to what I thought I needed - even for commercial development. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "John R. Strohm" wrote in message news:FB62AE96629A8FFC.96C668F31878EBAC.483E10041D85B955@lp.airnews.net... > Back in the Middle Ages of military software development, we had > DOD-STD-2167A and all the related Data Item Descriptions. It used to be > possible to go out on the Web and download a full set of same, or you could > get it from your friendly neighborhood company specifications and standards > library. (I went through that exercise, a few times, with MIL-STD-1679, > DOD-STD-2167, and DOD-STD-2167A.) > > Last I heard, DOD-STD-2167A had been dropped, and the successor project, > DOD-STD-SDS, was terminated, with the idea being instead to use equivalent > commercial specification standards. > > Does anyone know what the "equivalent" standards are, and where I can scrape > up a set, and how much it will cost me? ("Free" is a very good answer: this > is something I'm doing on my own, rather than something my employer wants me > to spend time and money doing.) > > Alternatively, if anyone can point me at a bootleg site with the full set > for DOD-STD-2167A, i.e., the standard and all the related DIDs, that would > also be good. > > Thanks for all answers. > > --John R. Strohm > > >