Re: Business Requirements

[Dave Van Noord <vannoord@trans4m.com>]

The content of this was just an example for thought - not meant to be anything
real.  If we define it like we have been discussing, we can XMLize it later.
(Then we can have fun arguing about attributes vs elements :-) )

Terry Allen wrote:

> Scott wrote:
> | This is the clip from David email (getDTD) that I like, since it uses
> | classic 'getters' and 'setters' syntax.
> |
> | <MessageRouting>
> |   <to>repository</to>
> |   <from>me</from>
> |   ...
> | </MessageRoutine>
> | <repositoryRequest>
> |   <getDTD>
> |       <id>xxx/xxx/xx/someName.dtd</id>
> |       <version>234346</version>
> |   </getDTD>
> | </repositoryRequest>
> |
> |
> | I prefer not to get into this level of detail until we get the requirements
> | knocked out, since we could debate for days on whether the
> | <repositoryRequest> tag is really an element, or whether it should be an
> | attribute of <MessageRouting>; e.g., <MessageRouting
> | type="repositoryRequest">.
>
> Or any number of other things.  In general I hold strong opinions on this
> sort of thing, but for the purpose of putting together a registry and
> repository that works for all of us, I really don't care about style
> so long as the stuff works.
>
> | How can I get the UML pages to everyone?  I could zip up, and email to the
> | list, and have everyone extract and view with a java and frames capable
> | browser.  Is that OK?  It extremely early its stages, but I think the time
> | is now to see the "pictures".  There are no classes except for the actors so
> | XMI encoded information is extremely limited.
>
> I think that may be the best you can do right now; are these the diagrams
> or the HTMLified view?
>
> regards, Terry