tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7879107.post4705546267009183793..comments2023-12-08T01:42:31.590-06:00Comments on Cauvin: Requirements and Functional DecompositionRoger L. Cauvinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08969779835314260680noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7879107.post-66164235528344433802009-05-06T08:50:00.000-05:002009-05-06T08:50:00.000-05:00Murray, I completely agree that the 2nd specificat...Murray, I completely agree that the 2nd specification is design and not a requirement. In fact, the point of the 2nd specification was to show that, as a functional decomposition of a nonfunctional requirement, it is design.Roger L. Cauvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08969779835314260680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7879107.post-457748371840388762009-04-29T10:59:00.000-05:002009-04-29T10:59:00.000-05:00I agree that the 1st specification is a nonfunctio...I agree that the 1st specification is a nonfunctional requirement. However, I disagree with you about the 2nd specification. <br /><br />The 2nd specification looks to me to be a specific design (not requirement) that is trying to satisfy the nonfunctional requirement in the 1st specification.Murrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06417249525707997589noreply@blogger.com