MENU
What requirements are good candidates for reuse?
Suggested Answer: A
Get Premium ECBA Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
Requirements that are good candidates for reuse are those that are not tied to a specific tool, technology, or system. These requirements are generally applicable across various contexts and can be used in multiple projects without significant changes. They are typically high-level business requirements that describe what the business needs without prescribing how to achieve it. This makes them flexible and adaptable to different situations, which is essential for reuse.
36 comments · newest first
EL
Elli
11 months ago
Wait, can we really reuse requirements without tool ties? Sounds risky.
CH
Cherelle
11 months ago
D is too specific, not reusable at all!
MA
Martina
12 months ago
C seems like a solid choice too, low abstraction is key.
LO
Lorrie
12 months ago
I disagree, B can also be reused if detailed enough.
KA
Karon
1 year ago
A is definitely a good candidate for reuse!
ES
Estrella
1 year ago
I definitely recall that requirements tied to specific departments are usually not reusable, so D seems like a no-go.
EL
Elza
1 year ago
I feel like detailed requirements might be more specific and less reusable, but I could be mixing that up with another topic.
DO
Donette
1 year ago
I remember a practice question that mentioned low levels of abstraction being less reusable, so I might lean towards option A.
LA
Lanie
1 year ago
I think requirements without direct ties to a particular tool could be good for reuse, but I'm not entirely sure.
MI
Mitsue
1 year ago
Ah, I see. Requirements that are more detailed and at a lower level of abstraction are likely to be more reusable. I'll make sure to highlight that in my response.
IS
Isreal
1 year ago
Okay, I think the key here is that reusable requirements should be more general and not tied to a specific tool or implementation. I'll focus on that in my answer.
LE
Lettie
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this. I'll need to review my notes on reusable requirements to make sure I understand the criteria.
JE
Jeffrey
1 year ago
This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the key factors that make requirements good candidates for reuse.
SH
Shelton
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused by the two XQuery expressions. Are they supposed to return the same result, or are they testing different things? I'll need to double-check my understanding of XPath and how to select elements based on both position and attribute values.
DE
Devorah
2 years ago
I'd go for option A. Keeps things flexible and avoids the dreaded 'vendor lock-in'.
RO
Rosalyn
2 years ago
Ha! Requirements with department references? Might as well just name the company too. Good one!
AR
Arlen
2 years ago
C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction
MI
Michel
2 years ago
B) Requirements expressed in more detail
LI
Lino
2 years ago
A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool
IS
Isabella
2 years ago
Definitely not the ones with specific references to departments. That's way too specific and tied to a particular organization.
KA
Kate
2 years ago
C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction
AL
Albina
2 years ago
B) Requirements expressed in more detail
LA
Lawanda
2 years ago
A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool
DE
Delsie
2 years ago
I agree with Alexia. Requirements at a higher level of abstraction are more reusable. But I'd still want some detail, not just vague statements.
KI
Kimi
2 years ago
C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction
LI
Lindsey
2 years ago
B) Requirements expressed in more detail
ED
Eden
2 years ago
A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool
FR
Francine
2 years ago
I believe requirements expressed in more detail can also be good candidates for reuse, as they provide a clear understanding of what needs to be done.
AL
Alexia
2 years ago
A requirements without direct ties to a particular tool sounds like the way to go. That way, we can reuse it across different projects and tools.
PA
Paris
2 years ago
A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool sounds like the way to go. That way, we can reuse it across different projects and tools.
LA
Lauran
2 years ago
That makes sense. It would make it easier to reuse across different projects.
KA
Kandis
2 years ago
C) Requirements at low levels of abstraction
ES
Essie
2 years ago
B) Requirements expressed in more detail
JE
Jerry
2 years ago
A) Requirements without direct ties to a particular tool
ME
Melodie
2 years ago
I agree with Percy. Requirements at low levels of abstraction can also be good candidates for reuse.
PE
Percy
2 years ago
I think requirements without direct ties to a particular tool are good candidates for reuse.