f



Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

Is there a written standard anywhere that defines specification terms
like "shall" and "should" and "must"?

I've run into a number of projects where, in particular, "shall" /
"must" / "will" are all used interchangeably.

Your thoughts...
0
8/31/2005 6:07:59 PM
comp.software-eng 4494 articles. 1 followers. editor (304) is leader. Post Follow

13 Replies
1475 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 59

"C. J. Clegg" <reply.to.newsgroup@nospam.no> wrote in message 
news:jbsbh19g228ne84213f8kh0uvccj5ie6sg@4ax.com...
>
> Is there a written standard anywhere that defines specification terms
> like "shall" and "should" and "must"?
>
> I've run into a number of projects where, in particular, "shall" /
> "must" / "will" are all used interchangeably.
>


When in doubt, place an explicit statement that serves to indicate the 
interpretation that will be used (make certain it is not inconsistent with 
the customers rules and regulations)

> Your thoughts... 


0
8/31/2005 6:14:43 PM
C. J. Clegg wrote:
> Is there a written standard anywhere that defines specification terms
> like "shall" and "should" and "must"?
> 
> I've run into a number of projects where, in particular, "shall" /
> "must" / "will" are all used interchangeably.
> 
> Your thoughts...

oh ...the beauty of google and having worked in telecomms where this 
knowledge is an (unfortunate) must (no pun intended)

http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/section5.html
0
news248 (706)
8/31/2005 6:53:57 PM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:14:43 GMT, "David Lightstone"
<david._NoSpamlightstone@prodigy.net> wrote:

> When in doubt, place an explicit statement that serves to indicate the 
> interpretation that will be used (make certain it is not inconsistent with 
> the customers rules and regulations)

Good morning, David.

Yes, I always do that for the documents for which I'm responsible.  I
have one client right now who insists it doesn't matter.  They're
working on a military project AND they're going for CMM Level 3
assessment so I'm pretty sure that cavalier attitudes about term
definitions won't fly too well...
0
9/3/2005 1:34:41 PM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:53:57 +0100, Andrew McDonagh
<news@andrewcdonagh.f2s.com> wrote:

> oh ...the beauty of google and having worked in telecomms where this 
> knowledge is an (unfortunate) must (no pun intended)
>
> http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/section5.html

Good morning, Andrew.

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

I did try Google and got too many hits, also tried searching the IEEE
website and for some reason didn't find this.

Anyway, my additional purpose for posting the question here was to
generate a discussion, if there is a discussion to be had... :-)

Just added this one to my bookmarks ... thanks again.
0
9/3/2005 1:39:56 PM
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:39:56 -0400, C. J. Clegg
<reply.to.newsgroup@nospam.no> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:53:57 +0100, Andrew McDonagh
><news@andrewcdonagh.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> oh ...the beauty of google and having worked in telecomms where this 
>> knowledge is an (unfortunate) must (no pun intended)
>>
>> http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/section5.html
>
>Good morning, Andrew.
>
>Exactly what I was looking for, thanks.
>
>I did try Google and got too many hits, also tried searching the IEEE
>website and for some reason didn't find this.
>
>Anyway, my additional purpose for posting the question here was to
>generate a discussion, if there is a discussion to be had... :-)
>
>Just added this one to my bookmarks ... thanks again.

Note that these are the rules that IEEE follows in /standards/, not
the rules that other people's documents must follow. 

-- 
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.
0
ronjeffries2 (313)
9/4/2005 11:56:32 AM
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 07:56:32 -0400, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@acm.org>
wrote:

> Note that these are the rules that IEEE follows in /standards/, not
> the rules that other people's documents must follow. 

Good afternoon, Ron.

You are correct of course.

I have been claiming that these usages are the de facto industry
standard usages, and this IEEE usage backs that up.
0
9/4/2005 8:36:33 PM
Andrew McDonagh wrote:
> C. J. Clegg wrote:
> 
>> Is there a written standard anywhere that defines specification terms
>> like "shall" and "should" and "must"?
> [...]
> http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/section5.html

Here are links that you can find in the W3 specifications (like 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#terms):

[RFC2119]
     "RFC2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 
Levels", S. Bradner, March 1997.
     Available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

[POSIX.1]
     "ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990 Information Technology - Portable Operating 
System Interface (POSIX) - Part 1: System Application Program Interface 
(API) [C Language]", Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 
Inc, 1990.

-- 
Yermat
0
loic (52)
9/5/2005 7:43:34 AM
Yermat wrote:

> Here are links that you can find in the W3 specifications (like 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#terms):
>
> [RFC2119]
>     "RFC2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", 
> S. Bradner, March 1997.
>     Available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Aren't those "recommendations"?

Shan't "shall" have the force of law (or our modern equivalent)?

-- 
  Phlip
  http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand  <-- NOT a blog!!! 


0
phlipcpp (2771)
9/5/2005 3:34:41 PM
"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:lAZSe.158$su7.36@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> Yermat wrote:
>
>> Here are links that you can find in the W3 specifications (like 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#terms):
>>
>> [RFC2119]
>>     "RFC2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", 
>> S. Bradner, March 1997.
>>     Available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
> Aren't those "recommendations"?
>
> Shan't "shall" have the force of law (or our modern equivalent)?
>
> -- 
>  Phlip
>  http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand  <-- NOT a blog!!!
>


You can argue the options until you are blue in the face.
The reality of the situation is that there are 3 choices
(1) Reinvent the square wheel
(2) Adopt the a known "standard"/recommendation
(3) do nothing

Seems like you are in the square wheel camp


0
9/6/2005 12:58:05 AM
Phlip wrote:

> 
> Aren't those "recommendations"?
> 
> Shan't "shall" have the force of law (or our modern equivalent)?
> 

A W3C "recommendation" is what other organizations call an approved 
standard.

Here's ISO's rule:
6.10.8 Use of words
The word "shall" shall be used to express mandatory requirements. The 
word "may" shall be used to express optional
requirements. Although the negative form of "shall" is "shall not", the 
negative form of "may" is not "may not", but is
"need not". The use of "may not" shall be avoided.

http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2489/Ittf_Home/ITTF.htm
0
jefflanam (10)
9/8/2005 6:49:49 AM
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 06:49:49 GMT, Jeff Lanam <jefflanam@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The word "shall" shall be used to express mandatory requirements. The 
>word "may" shall be used to express optional
>requirements.

What is an "optional requirement"? :-)
0
9/15/2005 12:17:52 AM
C. J. Clegg <reply.to.newsgroup@nospam.no> writes:

> 
> What is an "optional requirement"? :-)
>

An oxymoron?

:-)

Ciao,

Peter K.
0
p.kootsookos (313)
9/15/2005 1:10:22 AM
"Peter K." <p.kootsookos@remove.ieee.org> wrote in message
news:u3bo7w2yp.fsf@remove.ieee.org...
> C. J. Clegg <reply.to.newsgroup@nospam.no> writes:
>
> >
> > What is an "optional requirement"? :-)
> >
>
> An oxymoron?
>
> :-)

That'd be a great name for a requirements tool:

Oxymoron 2.0 - Now with state-of-the-art support
for self-contradiction!  -Wm


0
reply34 (475)
9/15/2005 2:56:23 PM
Reply: