[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Chronological Index][Thread Index]

Re: applications vs. underlying level

MK:I really agree on this one: you can't set about looking for a good
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).

MK's reply:

Well, you won't get much controversy from me because I totally agree
with you!

Except that, when you sit down to set out the organisation of the
solution you think you've got in a formal and structured way, it's
surprising how often you discover holes in your supposed solution and
things you've managed not even to think about before! 

And I do think it helps in defining the attributes to have a starting
place like the ISO quality characteristics, and to tell yourself that
what you need to do is to define the attributes that go to make up that
characteristic for the particular class of systems you're interested in.


Please note my new e-mail address (old address was king@divsun.unige.ch)
Maghi King                   | E-mail: Margaret.King@issco.unige.ch
ISSCO, University of Geneva  | WWW: http://issco-www.unige.ch/
54 route des Acacias         | Tel: +41/22/705 71 14
CH-1227 GENEVA (Switzerland) | Fax: +41/22/300 10 86