Thanks for the change!
Re. the order, I'd put the classification at the end, like the categories in Wikipedia.
Cheers,
Antoine
On 9/16/14 5:46 PM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I changed the label "requirements classes" to "requirement classification".
>
> I would suggest this order for the fields of requirements:
>
> 1. label
> 2. alphanumeric ID
> 3. definition
> 4. requirement classification
> 5. description
> 6. examples
> 7. use cases
>
> --> switch definition and requirement classification
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
> --------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> ---Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> ---Im Auftrag von Antoine Isaac
> ---Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. September 2014 17:23
> ---An: [log in to unmask]
> ---Betreff: [RDF AP] Suggested change in interface for requirement DB
> ---
> ---Hi,
> ---
> ---While browsing around I realize some of the confusion around the classes of
> ---requirements might be caused the unclear label "requirements classes" used
> ---for linking them from requirements. See at
> ---http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/32
> ---
> ---It would be clearer if the label makes it clear that this is a classification of the
> ---current requirement. Something like "requirement classification" could be
> ---already better.
> ---And in fact it could also be put in the bottom of the page. As it stands now, the
> ---classification is something that should be elicited after having defined what
> ---the requirement is, not before...
> ---
> ---Cheers,
> ---
> ---Antoine
>
|