SRS Review: Assumptions section

[samm82]

TODO

Any point that requires more discussion should be pulled out to a different issue; I grouped these all here since they are related and small.

• [x] There seems to be two assumptions in A1 (2D + observed at moment of load placement).
• [x] The definition of "slender" should be moved to the Terms and Defs section.
• [x] A2-A4 should be better formatted. Consider describing the beam as prismatic in the System Context section, then just listing A3 and A4 as their own assumptions (not as sub-assumptions of A2).
• [x] From what I can tell, "linear-elastic" shouldn't have a hyphen.
• [x] The wordings of A9 and A10 are confusing.
• [x] Either traceability between assumptions and what reference them is not included, or your assumptions are not used by the rest of the document.

[balacij]

Regarding A9 and A10, I think they are the now A15 and A16. I'm not quite sure what's confusing about it, can you elaborate please?

[balacij]

Assumptions are underused, but necessary. I need Drasil's help to annotate it everywhere. I'll work on that with the Drasil code instead of the POC.

[samm82]

For A15 and A16, why not just say "The deflection function (y_B(x)) is continuously differentiable 4 times on [0,L]"? The current text seems too wordy.

[balacij]

Sure, that's fine too. I was initially thinking about $C^n$ (as in "the classes" in the standard sense) which is why it ended up like this.

[samm82]

Not sure I fully understand that notation but it's up to you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[balacij]

Oh, I changed it. Writing out the classes textually is definitely suboptimal, lol.