The Analysis and Proposed Modifications to ISO/IEC 25030—Software Engineering—Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation—Quality Requirements
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
The quality of the software product is a crucial factor that contributes to its success. Therefore, it is important to specify the right software quality requirements that will establish the basis for desired quality of the final system/software product. There are several known methodologies/ processes that support the specification of the system/software functional requirements starting from the user needs to finally obtain the system requirements that the developers can implement through their development process. System/software quality requirements are interdependent with functional requirements, which means that the system/software quality requirements are meant to be specified in parallel with the latter. The ISO/IEC 25000 [1] SQuaRE series of standards include the standard ISO/IEC 25030—Software engineering—Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation—Quality requirements [2], which has as main goal to help specify software quality requirements. As to date, this standard does not offer clear and concise steps that a software quality engineer could follow in order to specify them. This article presents modifications recommended for ISO/IEC 25030 standard, with, among the others, a new requirements definition process that allows for specifying the system/software quality requirements taking into account the existing published system and software quality model ISO/IEC 25010 [3] as well as all the stake- holders of the project.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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