Req nr | Description | Remarks | |
1 | The tool will manage a set of trees, each node of a tree being a record; upon display of a tree the user may collapse or expand the tree at each node; the depth and lenght of the tree should not be limited | ||
2 | Each record will consist of a tag-subrecord, consisting of a tag-string and the UDEF-version number at which this tag was approved for the first time, and a set of language specific sub-records, each sub-record being a mandatory UDEF concept qualification word and an optional descriptive string; in the root of the tree the descriptive string is mandatory; the length of UDEF qualification words and description texts must not be limited to any maximum size | ||
3 | The tool will enforce that at least one language sub-record will exist for each tag-string. The language codes will be as specified in ISO 3166-1. | ||
4 | The tool will enforce consecutive tag-string assignment on each branching level of the trees | ||
5 | The tool will enforce uniqueness of the UDEF concept qualification word within its branching level for each language, for each tree and for each subtree independently, except for the word “UDEF-retired” | ||
6 | The tool will enforce grammar rules independently by language for the UDEF concept qualification words | ||
7 | The tool will manage access rights to the branches and leaves of the tree by language | ||
8 | Each sub-record can have the status proposed, agreed, base-lined or retired; each language sub-record having its own independent status; the retired status can only apply to the complete record (all language sub-records). The tool will maintain the minimum version number for each language that has been baselined. The tool will automatically update the highest version number that occurs in the tags associated with all base-lined language subrecords | ||
9 | Everyone has read-access to all base-lined sub-records including retired records | ||
10 | Read-, Add-, Update-, Promote- and Delete- access to proposed and agreed sub-records can be assigned independently to named users or user groups, groups being by language and/or by tree. Upon promotion different access rights will automatically apply. Until a sub-record is baselined, description text can be modified by a single authorised editor; once a sub-record is base-lined description text can only be appended to by joined action of two independently authorised editors acting within a limited time period | ||
11 | The tool will allow searching multiple trees for matching words by language. Search can be in the entire subrecords or in UDEF concept qualification words only | ||
12 | The tool must be designed to support reserved words in the tag-string in order to trigger specified external functionality, in particular it must be designed to work in a distributed environment, assuming that multiple instances of the tool each will handle their own set of trees, and that linkage between trees can be enacted by means of specific reserved words | ||
13 | The tool will enforce and assign UDEF-tags on addition, subject to the tag assignment rules, which are different for Properties and Objects, and which may contain UDEF reserved words | ||
14 | A newly added entry in the tree will have the next available tag and be initially assigned the proposed status; on promotion a proposed sub-record will become an agreed entry, and promotion of a agreed record will result in a base-lined record; it will always be possible to create a new subtree below any lowest level entry, except below UDEF reserved words. | ||
15 | The tool will enforce that base-lined sub-records can never be deleted; instead they will be retired; retirement of a record requires proper authorisation and enforces execution of a 4-eye principle, i e that marking a record for retirement requires the actions of two independent named users, each with proper authorisation and within a limited time period; upon retirement the description text will be prepended with the concept qualification word and the concept qualification word will be replaced by “UDEF-retired”. | ||
16 | The tool will prevent promotion of a sub-record if sub-records with a lower tag-number within the same subtree exist with a lower promotion level. Upon deletion of proposed records, higher number tags of other proposed records will automatically deleted | ||
17 | Upon read-access the tool will clearly show the promotion status of each sub-record. | ||
18 | The tool will allow simultaneous viewing and editing (dependent on access rights) of multiple language sub-records associated to the same tag | ||
19 | The tool must be capable to generate XML-files for each tree, independently for each language; preferably it can also generate RDF and HTML files in the same way; the generated files will contain either, the base-lined sub-records, the base-lined and the agreed subrecords or the base-lined, agreed and proposed subrecords; the generation options must be made dependent on authorisation attributes of the user | ||
20 | The tool preferable is capable to export the UDEF-trees or selected parts into offline file formats (.ODS and potentially others) | ||
21 | The tool will support multiple charactersets independently for each language set of sub-records, including the ability to handle double byte charactersets for languages like Chinese, Japanese and Korean | ||
22 | Upon adding a duplicate concept qualification word in a subtree on the same level the tool shall display its synonyms and prevent storage of the duplicate | ||
23 | The tool will enable a multi-lingual user interface independently of the languages present in the trees | ||
24 | The tool will assign version numbers to generated XML- and RDF-files according to some preset rules, which are integral part of the promotion to base-line status of records. | ||
25 | The tool will be able to generate backlevel XML- and RDF-files | ||
26 | The tool should be able to automatically send notifications to designated administrators when extension proposals are added, or when proposed (sub-)records are promoted. For each tree, and below each UDEF reserved word, and for each language, administrators shall be designated independently | ||
27 | The tool should preferably be developed as a webservice with a loosely coupled user interface; the intended core webservice should be robust enough to be a reference implementation of a UDEF-registry engine | Similar to BIND as a reference implementation for DNS | |
28 | The tool shall keep an audit trail, that will allow an auditor to check who changed what when |