[trustable-software] t.opinion isn't t.feedback (Paul Albertella)

[rupertb at cix.co.uk]

Paul/Daniel et al
You seem be straying the world of argumentation here see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin#The_Toulmin_Model_of_Argument

Its not a bad thing, but a whole lot more complex 😊

-R

-----Original Message-----
From: trustable-software <trustable-software-bounces at lists.trustable.io> On Behalf Of trustable-software-request at lists.trustable.io
Sent: 28 November 2019 12:00
To: trustable-software at lists.trustable.io
Subject: trustable-software Digest, Vol 34, Issue 2

Send trustable-software mailing list submissions to
	trustable-software at lists.trustable.io

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.trustable.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/trustable-software

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	trustable-software-request at lists.trustable.io

You can reach the person managing the list at
	trustable-software-owner at lists.trustable.io

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of trustable-software digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: t.opinion isn't t.feedback (Paul Albertella)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:03:33 +0000
From: Paul Albertella <paul.albertella at codethink.co.uk>
To: trustable-software at lists.trustable.io
Subject: Re: [trustable-software] t.opinion isn't t.feedback
Message-ID: <c0443827-60ec-c574-d83c-ab2a8d9ffafb at codethink.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Hi,

I wrote:
 > Do we need to have two terms, to allow us to distinguish between these  > two types of input, or can we come up with a term that encompasses  > both?

After discussing this with a colleague (Daniel Silverstone, take a bow), we have another suggestion:

1) We retain t.opinion, but explicitly define it as a recorded statement from a human relating to a t.proposal, which is necessarily subjective.

2) We add a new element called t.score, which represents recorded input to an evaluation process that can be mechanically processed. This may be human in origin (e.g. a record of a show of hands in a meeting, or an approval registered through a code review system), or it may come from a computer system (e.g. pass/fail logged by an automated process, based on the results of a test execution).

* A t.score MAY be supported or accompanied by a t.opinion.
* A t.score MAY be supported by other recorded evidence (e.g. full test
   results or a log file).

I hope that this makes a clearer distinction between the different classes of evidence that we want to consider, while being sufficiently generic to enable us to model any type of process.

Regards,

Paul



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
trustable-software mailing list
trustable-software at lists.trustable.io
https://lists.trustable.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/trustable-software


------------------------------

End of trustable-software Digest, Vol 34, Issue 2
*************************************************