On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Jack Ring wrote:
> I have made you aware of the description of quality as shared by the quality
>guru's. Your view differs. That is certainly your prerogative. (01)
Seems to me Matthew's point is not one with which reasonable people can
disagree. (02)
> Let's assume that the fifth bug is relevant. If the first four bugs had no
>effect on the usefulness of the program then fixing them doesn't reduce the
>virulence of the fifth bug. (03)
This just isn't relevant. Matthew provided a simple counterexample to your
assertion that "quality is binary": a case where there are five (equally
severe) bugs in a program and four are fixed is obviously an improvement in
quality short of perfection. Case closed; quality isn't binary (unless you mean
something idiosyncratic by "quality"). Your pointing out that you can modify
the conditions of his example in such a way that it is no longer a
counterexample is irrelevant. Suppose you claim that all the balls in the bin
are red or green. If Matthew reaches in and pulls out a blue one, it is no
defense of your claim to reach in and pull out a red or green one. (04)
> I can be certain that software is defect free if I know the context of the
>software, both its operational context and the purpose of its usage.
> I cannot be certain which kid will win the spelling bee. I can be certain of
>the last one left. Similarly, I can be certain of the weakest precondition for
>any output and whether the WP will be met for any scenario of input or any
>limits on inputs.
> Make sense? (05)
Maybe. But it doesn't have much that I can see to do with your claim that
"quality is binary". (06)
Chris Menzel (07)
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>
>> Dear Jack,
>>
>>> MW,
>>> Standing on the shoulders of Deming, Crosby, Juran, etc. I would first ask
>> the
>>> owner a) Is the fifth one guaranteed irrelevant
>>
>> MW: I am assuming it is relevant.
>>
>>> and b) what is your level of
>>> confidence there are not 6 errors?
>>> Jack
>>
>> MW: Indeed, but then by the same token how can you be certain anything is
>> defect free, even if no defects are apparent?
>>
>> MW: I think it is more useful to think of quality as the degree to which
>> requirements are met. Then when you fix some bugs you have improved the
>> quality, though you may not have met all the requirements.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Matthew West
>> Information Junction
>> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Matthew West wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Jack,
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding Nicola's quite relevant concern (below) it may be useful to note
>>>>> that a) quality is binary, not a scalar (Crosby, Deming, Juran, etc.)
>Quality
>>>>> signifies conformance to requirements, Yes or No, therefore 'high
>quality' is
>>>>> meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> MW: So presumably you would argue that if an ontology has 5 defects, and 4
>>>> of them are fixed, there is not improvement in quality as a result....
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Matthew West
>>>> Information Junction
>>>> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>>>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>>>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|