-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
How to deal with gap analysis? Need clear definition for "gap analysis" #267
Comments
For me a gap analysis can be one of the following:
|
@chachamimm this would be a good issue to continue the lacking information I have identified in #299 . My main problem is having enough information to identify the gaps. I propose adding some questions in the gap section of the template that the submitter can pick and answer such as:
|
@egekorkan It is good for your opinions. I think we should discuss this issue. I think we have a lot of questions to ask our stakeholders. However, asking all of these questions would complicate a questionnaire. Then, it may be difficult for stakeholders to write their use cases. For example, your proposals require stakeholders to have knowledge of TD and binding. Then, stakeholders need time to write their use cases. This makes it difficult for stakeholders to write use cases. It's not that I want to reject your proposals. The Use Cases Template should be easy for stakeholders to write their use cases. On the other hand, the Use Cases Template should be for WoT WG/IG to take many informations to standardize. I think their balance is important. I think we need to think about the best way to write your proposals in the use case template. |
@egekorkan I think that explanatory text for each question item should be added in the Use Cases Issue Template. Because there are not enough information for each question items for stakeholders to write. @egekorkan, could you please add explanatory text for each question item in the Use Cases Issue Template? |
There is a discussion about the classification of 'use cases' in #268.
If what we are currently collecting falls under category 1, I think we should place more emphasis on the clarity of the gap analysis. |
From the previous minutes:
McCool: we need a document on the current features.
... I agree we should not accept proposals which are already covered.
... Btw, I think user stories are good way to see the gaps also see issue 261 also
... #261
kaz: we need to define "gap analysis" a bit more
... user story is important but it's already required for the use case definition phase as the starting point
... my understanding on what Mizushima-san meant by "gap analysis" is evaluating if the requirements extracted from the use cases are already covered by the existing WoT standards or not
... but we still need to clarify what we mean by "gap analysis"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: