[trustable-software] Our thoughts on OpenControl and Mustard
Jim MacArthur
jim.macarthur at codethink.co.uk
Sun Oct 23 19:42:04 UTC 2016
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:25:05PM +0100, Paul Sherwood wrote:
> A further question in this thread... I'm about to try to define (or
> retrofit) the functional and non-functional requirements for some software
> tooling. In particular I want to record things like
>
> - foo must do bar
> - foo needs to complete in x seconds
> - multiple instances of foo can be run on one machine
> - foo can be used on a range of operating systems including at a minimum x
> and y
>
> etc.
>
> Ideally I'd like to do this in a lightweight structured way, in YAML, and
> have the possibility that we could also consider the applicability of some
> external compliance requirements (eg SIL, NIST) for foo.
>
> Based on what you've established so far, would it be better for me to start
> this work in Mustard, or OpenControl, or something else?
I think you should start in Mustard, since that's designed to capture direct
requirements. I believe it will be practical to translate Mustard requirements
into the OpenControl format at some point in the future, and Mustard will
enable you to do more with your requirements at the moment.
Jim
More information about the trustable-software
mailing list