Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!snorkelwacker!spdcc!merk!alliant!linus!linus!chance!mitchell
From: mitchell@chance.uucp (George Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Amount of Design Documentation
Message-ID: <116417@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 8 Aug 90 12:33:10 GMT
References: <Eail8ur0BwwAEiGEo8@transarc.com> <1207@mtunq.ATT.COM>
Sender: usenet@linus.mitre.org
Reply-To: mitchell@chance.mitre.org (George Mitchell)
Organization: MITRE-McLean Software Engineering Laboratory
Lines: 20

In article <1207@mtunq.ATT.COM> psrc@mtunq.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) wrote:
`There's an implicit assumption here:  that design documentation is done
`in English (or Japanese, or whatever) prose.  To what extent have
`people had good luck with other forms, e.g., data flow diagrams, data
`dictionaries, structure charts, as documentation?

A closely related issue that I am interested in is the replacement of
top-level documentation with tools that capture and maintain
requirements in a primarily non-verbal form.  These could be CASE tools
or prototypes.  
`                                                   (By "success", I
`mean both "success in creating or generating such documentation", and
`"doing anything with such documentation when maintenance time comes
`along, and keeping such documentation up-to-date".)

Also, success in getting a user/client to accept such a representation.
--
George Mitchell, MITRE, MS Z676, 7525 Colshire Dr, McLean, VA  22102
email: gmitchel@mitre.org  [alt: mitchell@community-chest.mitre.org]
vmail: 703/883-6029         FAX: 703/883-5519