ISO/IEC SQuaRE. The second generation of standards for software product quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality needs for both customer and software supplier have become more complex and critical than ever. This paper presents the current ISO software products and process quality standards and our positioning of these standards as software quality engineering instruments, including the phases of product development to which they map. The first generation of these product-related and process-related standards are currently in their final ISO publication stage but, having been developed independently, their usage by practitioners will be particularly challenging. While ISO software experts are already at work defining strategies to develop the next generation of these standards, help is needed by practitioners to understand, deploy and leverage ISO standards that are now becoming available to them. This paper addresses first the immediate need for integrating these process and product related standards in the development process through our quality engineering approach which maps them at the detailed level of the life cycle. Then, work in progress at the ISO level to develop the next generation of these software quality related standards is presented. Key Words Software product quality, software product life cycle, quality measurement, quality evaluation, ISO/IEC 9126, ISO/IEC SQuaRE 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it