#13 Conventions: How to write requirements that are related to the CT model?

[Martin]

**Challenge: **

The requirements have to be understandable independently, especially independent from their place in the document or in the ReqIF representation, respectively.

**Solution: **

Using the nomenclature common name to reference the CT element, e.g.

• this CHANNEL -> gas supply configuration CHANNEL
• this METRIC -> infrastructure gas pressure METRIC

If this is not suitable, the RefID can be used, however, due to the readability, this is not the preferred way.

**Implications: **

• The Common Names of all terms the to be written in a proper way
• Tooling support would be great in a way that we can use references in the requirements and the nomenclature table is the single source of truth
  

Update:

We are going to use wording like:

• this CHANNEL -> CHANNEL with pm:Type/@Code = XYZ
• this METRIC -> METRIC with pm:Type/@Code = ABC

This makes it very clear. However, the readability is a bit less smooth, nevertheless, clarity is more important in standards.