Jump to content

Talk:Verification and validation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 173: Line 173:


:The majority of these edits look perfectly correct to me. If there's a problem, and remember these edits were all done a eighteen months ago, feel free to revert them with an explanation. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
:The majority of these edits look perfectly correct to me. If there's a problem, and remember these edits were all done a eighteen months ago, feel free to revert them with an explanation. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

== can someone correct a typo I tried am to busy and give up ==

I only corrected the spelling of word from '''Waning''' Letter to '''Warning''' Letter after ascertaining that “Warning Letter” was the correct title and spelling. When I pressed the link to download and save the PDF document the complete name appeared automatically on the save as document name window, above the saving format window, the complete title of the reference and the link all together, both spellings incorrect and correct concurrently in one. Thus the word WARNING was spelled incorrectly on the title of the link but correctly in the URL link which I copied and pasted entirely. However, I modified in bolde here the text pasted for this explanation only to emphasize the problem visually subsequently:
36. ^ United States Department of Health & Human Services (2009). "'''Waning''' Letter (WL No. 320-08-04)". http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/'''Warning'''LettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf. Retrieved 12 July 2009.

So I could not changed I hope that this explanation brings the matter to your attention so someone can make the necessary corrections I tried to make.

It should read when corrected:
36. ^ United States Department of Health & Human Services (2009). "Warning Letter (WL No. 320-08-04)". http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf. Retrieved 12 July 2009.

I have edited and corrected a couple of times before small errors or false links and had no problems yet on this occasion despite my efforts and since I do not have much time and for some reason the text in question when I pressed edit button did not appear in the editing box & page as it should maybe there are special methods to deal with text within the reference section which seems not very logic as if there is something more necessary than so many other things is to facilitate the referencing system from adding citations, changing, improving, to deleting them, The reliability of any encyclopaedia, academic publication, published dictionaries or non fiction book that calls for references is key to its credibility and finally its acceptance and usefulness. So if dealing with citations and referencing becomes specially painful, well we might as well close the kiosk and go fly a kite because the primary objective, that Wikipedia becomes respected world wide and can be used as a reliable source specially in Academia, and while it is visible that citations and Wikipedia has improved very much in the last years it has still a long way to go before it becomes an accepted and serious source in academic circles. It would be a pity that after so much efforts such a project would finally become worthless due to a lack of a serious yet easy and dependable referencing methodology. If I need to make such a fuss only to correct a typo... well what can I say? Best regards,
Santiago
[[Special:Contributions/91.157.28.241|91.157.28.241]] ([[User talk:91.157.28.241|talk]]) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:25, 11 November 2010

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSystems Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

Separate page

This general V & V page was created Sept 7, 2007 and Verification and Validation (software) was given a separate page with the software limitation. Rlsheehan 23:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have some of the content been moped up from this version ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_Validation&diff=207412488&oldid=207287464

If one does not agree with the writing, edit it please with your reasons provided

See Also Section

Please remove Atsec information security, this is a description of a company. It does not contribute any informative value to the subject that is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.78.55 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of V&V Section from Formal verification#Validation and Verification

I agree that V&V does not belong in Formal verification except, perhaps, by reference. There is a useful and common description of V&V in that section, however, that would fit nicely into Verification and Validation. Softtest123 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/ as I'm having difficulties to see the whole page--222.67.204.83 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and the article of

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TG9-3VVMNBN-11&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4f97b06a577bb7fc16f8b6602d5db3ff --222.64.30.132 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verification is failed for....

the logo in the letter http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf

http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=WL+No.+320-08-04&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=*&x=15&y=22 --222.67.209.78 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with the website of http://www.hhs.gov/ --222.67.209.78 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry founded http://www.hhs.gov/web/policies/webpolicies/logopolicies/#symbol

However, I'm confused that why government logos do not coexist with their department logos at the offical department home page.

or

provide a distinguished link to the logo page--222.67.209.78 (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone verify if....

the document is authentic...??? http://lib.njutcm.edu.cn/yaodian/ep/EP5.0/02_methods_of_analysis/2.2.__physical_and_physicochemical_methods/2.2.45.%20Supercritical%20fluid%20chromatography.pdf

Can it be found at EU government site?

an academic review of this is not available though http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+2.2.44+European+Pharmacopoeia&btnG=Search --222.67.205.250 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

additional info http://www.globalspec.com/reference/7531/Pharmaceutical-System-Suitability-Testing-Simplifying-a-Critical-Element-in-the-TOC-Monitoring-Process --222.67.205.250 (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Verification and validation V & V (from Software Quality perspective)

== Verification versus Validation == 

  Verification Vs Validation

Verification ensures that the system (software, hardware, documentation, and personnel) complies with an organization’s standards and processes, relying on review or non-executable methods.

Validation physically ensures that the system operates according to plan by executing the system functions through a series of tests that can be observed and evaluated.

Verification answers the question, “Did we build the right system?” while validations addresses, “Did we build the system right?”

Keep in mind that verification and validation techniques can be applied to every element of the computerized system. You’ll find these techniques in publications dealing with the design and implementation of user manuals and training courses, as well as in industry publications.


Reference: 2006 CSTE Common Body of Knowledge CBOK Added by Ahmad Al-Musallami (AMUS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amusallami (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


IEEE definitions of Verification and Validation

Contrary to the above definitions of "Validation vs. Verification", IEEE defines them as such:

Validation : "Confirmation by examination and provisions of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled." i.e. is it the right design? does the product meet the needs of the customer?

Verification : "Confirmation by examination and provisions of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled." i.e. is the design right? does it work as specifed?

Thus, It is clear that you can perfectly verify what turns out to be an invalid design... it is hinged in the requirements definition.

High-Level Flow of Validation and Verification

 step 1. create a high-level behavioral model to validate a customer's reqmts.
 step 2. from that model one extracts reqmts for the design.
 step 3. verify the reqmts for the design against the previously validated model.

as long as each step is performed correctly, prior to the subsequent step you should satisfy both validation and verification of the design.

Different approaches for the same goals in different contexts

Since I was insterested in program verification, a long time ago, I start to read about Software Engineering. Broadly speaking I observed two approaches Quality Assurance and Formal Methods. The first QA, place more emphasis in organizational aspects in software development, the second FM, logical and algebraic methods to make proofs to ensure the quality of programs.

Giving a sight to the v&v link talking about QA standards like iso9000, that are used in many engineering projects, like building NASA's navies.

QA, may use the approach of formal methods to achieve some goals, but FM are independent of the way a team building software is organized.

I think that the pages should not be merged, just be disambiguated for the context, this does not exclude that the entry V&V (QA) pointing to V&V (FM) when necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Validation is not a quality assurance activity

I disagree that validation is a quality assurance activity. It is in fact a quality control activity, just like verification. Quality assurance is about providing visibility to various stakeholders into the process used to develop the product (including quality control activities) through objective evidences, in order to provide confidence and assurance about the product quality. Mobius80 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)mobius80[reply]

The version comparisons of this topic......

Just let you know that all the writers for these versions maybe proxy writers or the writers who are cloned, except for the originals. This can be evidenced by the fact that the original references were retrievable

--222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, The above 6 links are like modern hexograms. The bottom three can been further traced whereas the top 3 remain questioned. I don't know whether wiki admin should be responsible for the traceability--222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welll, I let my cloned writers to add the following info....

--222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.201.249 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following info is about the writer who maybe a vandalist.....

as some of the critical infos of the article have been modified inappropriately, at least not in a common sense. --222.67.203.108 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then report the vandal, but I don't see a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do further tracking using various means --222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...the following trails is not normal either......and....

the critical infos of the article have been wrecked off....

See what those have been done

--222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, some of the content which are critical and which are not referenced could be damaged by the above practice --222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of these edits look perfectly correct to me. If there's a problem, and remember these edits were all done a eighteen months ago, feel free to revert them with an explanation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can someone correct a typo I tried am to busy and give up

I only corrected the spelling of word from Waning Letter to Warning Letter after ascertaining that “Warning Letter” was the correct title and spelling. When I pressed the link to download and save the PDF document the complete name appeared automatically on the save as document name window, above the saving format window, the complete title of the reference and the link all together, both spellings incorrect and correct concurrently in one. Thus the word WARNING was spelled incorrectly on the title of the link but correctly in the URL link which I copied and pasted entirely. However, I modified in bolde here the text pasted for this explanation only to emphasize the problem visually subsequently: 36. ^ United States Department of Health & Human Services (2009). "Waning Letter (WL No. 320-08-04)". http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf. Retrieved 12 July 2009.

So I could not changed I hope that this explanation brings the matter to your attention so someone can make the necessary corrections I tried to make.

It should read when corrected: 36. ^ United States Department of Health & Human Services (2009). "Warning Letter (WL No. 320-08-04)". http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf. Retrieved 12 July 2009.

I have edited and corrected a couple of times before small errors or false links and had no problems yet on this occasion despite my efforts and since I do not have much time and for some reason the text in question when I pressed edit button did not appear in the editing box & page as it should maybe there are special methods to deal with text within the reference section which seems not very logic as if there is something more necessary than so many other things is to facilitate the referencing system from adding citations, changing, improving, to deleting them, The reliability of any encyclopaedia, academic publication, published dictionaries or non fiction book that calls for references is key to its credibility and finally its acceptance and usefulness. So if dealing with citations and referencing becomes specially painful, well we might as well close the kiosk and go fly a kite because the primary objective, that Wikipedia becomes respected world wide and can be used as a reliable source specially in Academia, and while it is visible that citations and Wikipedia has improved very much in the last years it has still a long way to go before it becomes an accepted and serious source in academic circles. It would be a pity that after so much efforts such a project would finally become worthless due to a lack of a serious yet easy and dependable referencing methodology. If I need to make such a fuss only to correct a typo... well what can I say? Best regards, Santiago 91.157.28.241 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Verification_and_validation&oldid=396105204"