Even passing "Zero Defects" requirements leaves a wide range of quality
not yet determined. A user judges quality on "look and feel" -- which
includes ease of use -- not just on whether a system meets its specs.
Some specs may be of "higher quality" than others. (01)
A payroll system may require that input data be accepted, that payments
be made according to schedules, salaries, and rules, that taxes, union
dues, and insurance premiums be withheld, and that all such activity be
recorded. Meeting such requirements is the minimal acceptable quality for
the system. However, a system that runs faster, that makes input easier,
that detects input errors and suggests corrections, and that makes reports
that are easier to understand is a higher quality system. There is
certainly a non-binary quality measure on such systems. There is also a
step function between a system that meets the minimal requirements of the
task and one that doesn't. (02)
Other systems may be intrinsically hard, such as diagnosis of disease or
education of a child. A doctor or teacher may be more or less skilled at
such tasks, and therefore be judged to have different quality results. A
computer system working at similar tasks would likewise be judged to have
different levels of quality depending upon its results. In this case, too,
quality would not be binary. (03)
-- doug foxvog (04)
On Thu, December 16, 2010 12:48, Jack Ring said:
> I think you are on the right track, now take it to the end. All of this
> was settled 30 years ago --- in most disciplines.
> If "perfection" is not worth it from the point of view of the BUYER, then
> the acceptance criteria states what likelihood of latent error is
> acceptable and that becomes the specification for Quality.
> The therapeutic effect on both buyer and producer is well documented, in
> healthcare, and other venues as well as in manufacturing.
> I recommend that Quality of the Zero Defects kind be given serious
> consideration regarding ontologies even if some software people find it
> daunting.
> Jack
> ... (05)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (06)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|