Paper Info
Title
Comments on "Defining quality aspects for conceptual models" by J. Krogstie, O. I. Lindland and G. Sindre
Abstract
The overall quality model is described as a mixture of semiformal and informal conceptual presentations. Those raise the following questions and comments: on pp. 6-7, how ‘individual social actor’, ‘social actor’, ‘individual actor’ and ‘organizational actor’ differ and why those are defined separately? ‘technical actor’ (SW) as a member of ‘audience’ reflects SW as ‘too human’ definition of domain D: “… denotes the ‘ideal’ knowledge and is used as a conceptual fixpoint to enhance terminology discussions…” should be clarified in the definition of I, the audience interpretation, how the technical actors ‘think’ and ‘understand’ i.e. on which interpretation scheme formal reasoning is based? in formula 3 (p. 9), the symbol E is in a different meaning compared to formula 5 what is the difference between the dotted and undotted lines in fig. 3? on p. 10 in the definition of ‘completeness’, what kind are ‘limited domains’? on p. 11, the other term for ‘drawback’ could be ‘loss’: in this context the more relevant content for ‘cost’ would be ‘measured by costs’ a table of symbols used with short descriptions would help readers
Year
DOI
Venue
1995
10.1007/978-0-387-34870-4_23
ISCO
Keywords
Field
DocType
conceptual model,quality aspect,j. krogstie,g. sindre
Drawback,Formal reasoning,Terminology,Conceptual model,Symbol,Computer science,Conceptual system,Epistemology,Conceptual model (computer science)
Conference
ISBN
Citations 
PageRank 
0-412-63950-5
0
0.34
References 
Authors
1
1
Name
Order
Citations
PageRank
Pentti Kerola12418.54