Re: applications vs. underlying level
>I really agree on this one: you can't set about looking for a good way
>to measure something unless you know what it is you're trying to
>measure, and a lot of the time we don't.
>That's partly why the EAGLES stuff puts such a lot of emphasis on trying
>to break down the "quality" of a system into a concrete feature
>structure: each node in the structure corresponds to some attribute
>you're trying to find a value for.
If I may bring a pinch of controvercy here: feature structures give the
means to organize the solution, but not a way to find the solution
(the definition of the attribute themselves).