Validation in the Software Metric Development Process

In this paper the validation of software metrics will be examined. Two approaches will be combined: representational measurement theory and a validation network scheme. The development process of a software metric will be described, together with validities for the three phases of the metric development process. Representation axioms from measurement theory are used both for the formal and empirical validation. The differentiation of validities according to these phases unifies several validation approaches found in the software metric's literature

Huddl: the Hydrographic Universal Data Description Language

Since many of the attempts to introduce a universal hydrographic data format have failed or have been only partially successful, a different approach is proposed. Our solution is the Hydrographic Universal Data Description Language (HUDDL), a descriptive XML-based language that permits the creation of a standardized description of (past, present, and future) data formats, and allows for applications like HUDDLER, a compiler that automatically creates drivers for data access and manipulation. HUDDL also represents a powerful solution for archiving data along with their structural description, as well as for cataloguing existing format specifications and their version control. HUDDL is intended to be an open, community-led initiative to simplify the issues involved in hydrographic data access

Software cost estimation

The paper gives an overview of the state of the art of software cost estimation (SCE). The main questions to be answered in the paper are: (1) What are the reasons for overruns of budgets and planned durations? (2) What are the prerequisites for estimating? (3) How can software development effort be estimated? (4) What can software project management expect from SCE models, how accurate are estimations which are made using these kind of models, and what are the pros and cons of cost estimation models

Early evaluation of security functionality in software projects - some experience on using the common criteria in a quality management process

This paper documents the experiences of assurance evaluation during the early stage of a large software development project. This project researches, contracts and integrates privacy-respecting software to business environments. While assurance evaluation with ISO 15408 Common Criteria (CC) within the certification schemes is done after a system has been completed, our approach executes evaluation during the early phases of the software life cycle. The promise is to increase quality and to reduce testing and fault removal costs for later phases of the development process. First results from the still-ongoing project suggests that the Common Criteria can define a framework for assurance evaluation in ongoing development projects.Dieses Papier dokumentiert den Versuch, mittels der Common Criteria nach ISO 15408 bereits während der Erstellung eines Softwaresystems dessen Sicherheitseigenschaften zu überprüfen. Dies geschieht im Gegensatz zur üblichen Post-Entwicklungs-Evaluation

Verification, Analytical Validation, and Clinical Validation (V3): The Foundation of Determining Fit-for-Purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)

Digital medicine is an interdisciplinary field, drawing together stakeholders with expertize in engineering, manufacturing, clinical science, data science, biostatistics, regulatory science, ethics, patient advocacy, and healthcare policy, to name a few. Although this diversity is undoubtedly valuable, it can lead to confusion regarding terminology and best practices. There are many instances, as we detail in this paper, where a single term is used by different groups to mean different things, as well as cases where multiple terms are used to describe essentially the same concept. Our intent is to clarify core terminology and best practices for the evaluation of Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs), without unnecessarily introducing new terms. We focus on the evaluation of BioMeTs as fit-for-purpose for use in clinical trials. However, our intent is for this framework to be instructional to all users of digital measurement tools, regardless of setting or intended use. We propose and describe a three-component framework intended to provide a foundational evaluation framework for BioMeTs. This framework includes (1) verification, (2) analytical validation, and (3) clinical validation. We aim for this common vocabulary to enable more effective communication and collaboration, generate a common and meaningful evidence base for BioMeTs, and improve the accessibility of the digital medicine field

Mercury: using the QuPreSS reference model to evaluate predictive services

Nowadays, lots of service providers offer predictive services that show in advance a condition or occurrence about the future. As a consequence, it becomes necessary for service customers to select the predictive service that best satisfies their needs. The QuPreSS reference model provides a standard solution for the selection of predictive services based on the quality of their predictions. QuPreSS has been designed to be applicable in any predictive domain (e.g., weather forecasting, economics, and medicine). This paper presents Mercury, a tool based on the QuPreSS reference model and customized to the weather forecast domain. Mercury measures weather predictive services' quality, and automates the context-dependent selection of the most accurate predictive service to satisfy a customer query. To do so, candidate predictive services are monitored so that their predictions can be eventually compared to real observations obtained from a trusted source. Mercury is a proof-of-concept of QuPreSS that aims to show that the selection of predictive services can be driven by the quality of their predictions. Throughout the paper, we show how Mercury was built from the QuPreSS reference model and how it can be installed and used.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Quality criteria for multimedia

The meaning of the term quality as used by multimedia workers in the field has become devalued. Almost every package is promoted by its developers as being of the ‘highest quality’. This paper draws on practical experience from a number of major projects to argue, from a quality‐assurance position, that multimedia materials should meet pre‐defined criteria relating to their objectives, content and incidence of errors

Modeling good research practices - overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force - 1.

Models—mathematical frameworks that facilitate estimation of the consequences of health care decisions—have become essential tools for health technology assessment. Evolution of the methods since the first ISPOR modeling task force reported in 2003 has led to a new task force, jointly convened with the Society for Medical Decision Making, and this series of seven papers presents the updated recommendations for best practices in conceptualizing models; implementing state–transition approaches, discrete event simulations, or dynamic transmission models; dealing with uncertainty; and validating and reporting models transparently. This overview introduces the work of the task force, provides all the recommendations, and discusses some quandaries that require further elucidation. The audience for these papers includes those who build models, stakeholders who utilize their results, and, indeed, anyone concerned with the use of models to support decision making