IRC logs for #trustable for Tuesday, 2018-02-06

*** tiagogomes has joined #trustable01:38
*** Guest52267 has quit IRC01:38
*** toscalix has joined #trustable08:55
*** locallycompact has joined #trustable09:26
paulsher1oodlocallycompact: it occurred to me to wonder whether there would be any possibility of implementing a SAT solver for ?15:51
persiaReading that, I'm not sure about the requirement that a t.requirement be current: requirements are subject to change over time (with those changes represented as t.change)15:54
persia(also my usual artifact/artefact grumble)15:55
paulsher1oodwell, there's some implication that a t.change may cause some t.requirements to be no longer current15:55
persiaRight, hence my uncertainty at "each t.requirement MUST be current" in the t.requirements section, as "a t.change is is any change to t.standards, t.requirements, t.tests, t.inputs,16:00
persiat.documentation, or other materials that affect" specifically includes the implication you mention.16:00
* persia isn't sure where the extra carriage return originated16:01
*** locallycompact has quit IRC16:05
paulsher1ood'MUST be current' came from andrew + jon iirc16:21
persiaIt's a common fallacy from folk with lots of experience in requirements analysis.  I still have to remind myself that requirements are a snapshot of the intent of the stakeholders at a given moment in time, as I often want to write them down and get them right and then givce them to someone to implement.16:23
persiaUnfortunately, the practice of having either "current requirements" or "fixed requirements" ends up significantly slowing the time from desire to implementation, and weakening the ability of a project to ensure that the delivery matches the expectations at delivery time.16:24
paulsher1oodinterestingly edmund already mentioned 'intent' to me today16:24
paulsher1oodt.requirements represent the current understanding of stakeholder intent or similar?16:24
*** locallycompact has joined #trustable16:27
persiaTo my mind, a t.requirement is one component of stakeholder intent, and a collection of consistent t.requirements can be treated as a snapshot of current understanding.16:27
persiaBut it's hard to truly reach "current" understanding, as each stakeholder may have different views.  The closest I think we can approach is the set of t.requirements that has been approved by the approval process by the stakeholders.16:27
persiaThat is necessarily behind "now", but it is typically in advance of "is implemented".16:28
*** locallycompact has quit IRC16:28
*** locallycompact has joined #trustable16:28
paulsher1oodeach t.requirement is believed to represent a stakeholder intent. the set of t.requirements represents what we currently know of all stakeholder intents ??16:29
paulsher1oods/is believed to represent/represents/16:30
paulsher1oodor MUST represent16:30
persiaMy argument is that I don't believe there is "the set of t.requirements", although I otherwise agree with your statement.16:30
persiaI think there are several sets of t.requirements, being things like "all proposed t.requirements", "all approved t.requirements", "all implemented t.requirements", "all t.requirements submitted by the compliance team", etc.16:31
paulsher1oodah, ok16:31
paulsher1ooddo we need t.stakeholder and t.intent? :)16:32
persiaBut, yes, I think a t.reuirement MUST represent stakeholder intent.  I would hope that was covered by semantic assignment of the word "requirement" though.16:32
persiaHow far do you want to map the semantics :)16:32
paulsher1oodall the way down, ideally ;)16:32
persiaI think we can simply assert that t.requirement represtents a statement of stakeholder intent (or maybe a statement of intent, where the approval process separates stakeholders from non-stakeholders).16:33
persiaOuch.  Yes, if you want to do that, you have to dig down all the words.16:33
persiaEvery noun used on that page must be replaced by t.noun, and every noun must be defined in terms of the remainder of the nouns in a closed set.16:34
persiaBest practice is to also define all the verbs in terms of other verbs and nouns.16:34
persiaIn that case, we cannot simply assert anything, so yes.16:35
persiat.requirement IS t.statement OF t.stakeholder16:35
persiaWhere "IS" and "OF" are grammatical particles, "IS" specifying equivalence, and "OF" specifying posession16:36
paulsher1oodeek... maybe later :)16:37
persiaOr maybe t.requirement IS t.intent OF t.stakeholder is cleaner.  That allows t.intent to be defined as "t.requirement FOR t.feature in t.system"16:37
paulsher1oodt.requirement is t.evidence16:38
persiaUm, no.16:41
persiat.evidence is machine-parseable metadata associated with t.software16:41
persiaOr at least, I don't prefer grammars that permit asymmetric equivalence16:43
*** toscalix has quit IRC17:10
* paulsher1ood is unclear what the prblem is with that. we do need to be able to parse requirements, and trace them etc17:34
persiaTo my mind, a t.evidence object may contain a reference to a t.requirement, but should also contain a t.identity, timestamp, etc.17:34
persiaEssentially, who did what when to the t.requirement.17:35
persiaSo we can query a set of t.evidence to discover current state of a given t.requiremnt, and create t.requirement sets like the examples I listed above.17:35
persiaAt a semantic level, if "foo IS bar" and "bar IS baz", then I am unhappy if either "foo IS baz" or "baz IS foo" is not also true.17:36
persiaBut it is possible to create valid grammars that make me unhappy, and it may be that we end up needing such a grammar to express these concepts.17:37
paulsher1oodhmmm. source code is t.evidence also in my worldview, but maybe i'm missing some meta-argument17:38
persiaIt's precisely the same argument about requirements.17:38
persiaTo my mind, t.evidence can be about source code, but if we assert equivalence between "source code" and "evidence" and "requirement", then we don't end up with as many nouns.17:39
paulsher1oodare you just distinguising the content and the metadata?17:39
persiaSaying "every t.change to t.evidence must contain t.evidence about t.evidence" isn't as comprehensible.17:39
persiaUse/Mention distinction.17:40
paulsher1oodok, so t.content needs to be specified, separate from t.evidence17:40
persiaSo, I suppose I'm arguing about the meaning of the word "is", as much as folk have made fun of others doing this before me.17:40
persiaI think t.content IS t.change17:41
persiaIn that, I don't think anything exists except as an optimisation snapshot of a given state of the journalled playback of a set of t.evidence17:41
persiaSo, we might say "t.evidence REFERENCES t.change" or "t.evidence CONTAINS t.change", depending on the verb definitions.17:42
paulsher1oodi guess i will add t.sourcecode to the t.change list17:42
paulsher1oodjust for the benefit of drive-by readers :)17:43
persiaI don't think we can use simple grammatical markers (subjective, objective, possessive, locative, etc.), logical operators, or the copula in this relation.17:43
* paulsher1ood will leave the interpretation of persia's previous statement to others17:44
*** locallycompact has quit IRC21:42

Generated by 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!