Talk:Software requirements

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds of independent features and importance of Software requirements. Klbrain (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that this page be merged with Software requirements specification (SRS). Since "software requirements" is the broader term, it would seem sensible to merge SRS into this page. Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE

I agree with Paulralph on this, SRS should be merged into "Software Requirements". I volunteer to do it :). Lwoodyiii (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Software Requirements" and "Software Requirements Specifications" should be merged. They are both discussing the same topic. Blamdarot (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.254.19 (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.230.136 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I am in favor of merging software requirements into requirements engineering because it is my belief that the development of software should be an engineering art; that computer programs are the solution to a problem and that we know how to solve problems by the use of the art of engineering. To solve a problem, it is essential that the problem be understood. Requirements is the way we can express our understanding of a problem.

Far too few programs correctly and completely solve the problem they are attempting to solve and software users have come to accept that a computer program is an approximation of a solution to their problem and that to expect it to work in the entire domain is a fantasy.

True, there are domains in which software IS engineered and the development of an SRS is a standard and required practice. But where, for instance, is the SRS for Microsoft Office (or Open Office for that matter)?

Merging software requirements into engineering requirement will emphasize that software development IS engineering.

I have added links to the merge tags to link to here; perhaps there will now be more discussion.

Softtest123 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE

Disagree - I have long been a user of wikipedia but never posted before. I need to disagree with this merger proposal. I've been in the software development industry for 20 years so I do have some background in this area. I see two articles here because the software document is not the software requirement. The "parent" article is "software requirements". This article discusses the general topic and introduces the components of producing a set of software requirements. This topic should be expanded and serve as introduction to the whole topic. Below this parent it makes sense to have child articles, one of which is a discussion about how to write the requirements document. This sub-topic has sufficient use on its own and provides a focal point for any discussion about ways to structure and write a document. Bryan.gilbert (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I landed on this page when I googled for "Software Requirement Specification" which I learn is quite a known and significant document. Had this content been merged into Software requirements, I wouldn't have got that it does talk about SRS. It is possible that I am missing something. Prashant Serai (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. For the same reasons as above: a SRS is a document that contains software requirements. It's more a part-of relationship than is-a. Nevertheless, there should be links to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.5.246 (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree -- I don't even see how this is valid. Software Requirements is one use of requirement engineering however the requirement engineering process covers many domains -- not just software. 20:48, 13 July 2016 (CST)

Disagree - This question is invalid!, there is a huge difference between software requirements and requirements engineering, software requirement is an output of requirements engineering. they are not the same! Akamali (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I agree completely with Akamali. Do not merge these! Requirements Engineering is a whole-systems view of requirements. The output of this study will be hardware requirements, software requirements, user requirements, network requirements, interface requirements, business requirements, and more.

Above, it appears that Lwoodyiii, Blamdarot and others are talking of merging Software Requirements with Software Requirements Specification, which I also disagree with. A specification is a document, whereas a requirement is a concept that can be documented. One wiki entry can certainly reference the other, but they are different entities. Sschroeder (talk) 206.158.32.178 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree It is a fact that "software requirements engineering" is a drop in the ocean of "requirements engineering". It is its sub-field after all:

                Google search of "requirements engineering" yields          514,000 results
                Google search of "software requirements engineering" yields 173,000 results
                Google search of ("requirements engineering" -"software requirements engineering") = 507,000 results
                Google search of ("software requirements engineering" -"requirements engineering") = No results found

But, on the other hand, when we talk about software requirements as a phase of the software development process, then its real importance emerges:

                Google search of ("software requirements" -"engineering requirements") = 565,000 results
                Google search of ("engineering requirements" -"software requirements") = 457,000 results

Its importance is so great that it deserves its own article. If not convinced, try more combinations but choose and interpret them carefully. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scopemaster

I'd like to propose adding a paid tool under requirements elicitation, specification and validation. I propose it here on the talk page as it is my own tool (i.e. there is a COI) ScopeMaster at <<link redacted>>. Any objections?

Colinrhammond (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9 months have passed and now objections, so I will add it.

Colinrhammond (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your attempts to advertise on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie your editorial policing is robust to the point of preventing the world from learning. The software industry is full of people trying to make a living, perhaps yourself too(?). Wikipedia is full of links to commercial products, I am not seeking to challenge the boundaries of purpose of wikipedia, simply to enhance the completeness of this area of knowledge. I would be grateful for your guidance on what would be acceptable....?Colinrhammond (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a subject matter expert, you are no doubt familiar with a wide range of sources about the industry at large. If you are here to grow the encyclopedia rather than to self-promote, I suggest you find something entirely unrelated to Scopemaster or COSMIC to write about. - MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I consider myself qualified to contribute only in a narrow field, that for which I have expertise. Are you suggesting that I should only contribute to those fields which I have less expertise? Wouldn't that only serve to drive Wikipedia to a suboptimal source of wisdom? If you want experts to contribute then a modest degree of self promotion is bound to take place, I have done my best to tone it down a lot. Colinrhammond (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am suggesting. I'm the world's leading authority on the several things I've written and made as well, and I haven't added a word about them to Wikipedia, because I would have a massive conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance that this blank sections in 6 can at least have one tool mentioned? <<link redacted>> Colinrhammond (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Colin, we're not going to help you advertise. - MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]