Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc. - Software-Eng

This is a discussion on Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc. - Software-Eng ; 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......

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

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

  1. Default 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...

  2. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.


    "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...




  3. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

    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

  4. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

    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...

  5. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

    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.

  6. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

    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.

  7. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

    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.

  8. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

    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

  9. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.

    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!!!



  10. Default Re: Definition of "shall", "should", "must", etc.


    "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



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. email-display: "N", "D", " ": yeah; but "O"? How to MARK "O"?
    By Application Development in forum Mutt
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 07:13 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2007, 01:35 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 01:26 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-26-2006, 06:01 AM
  5. """""""""""""""""""""Visual C++ 2005 Express"""""""""""""""""
    By Application Development in forum DOTNET
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-12-2006, 03:55 AM