The Analysis and Proposed Modifications to ISO/IEC 25030—Software Engineering—Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation—Quality Requirements
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".