Impreciseness and Its Value from the Perspective of Software Organizations and Learning

  • Grigori Melnik
  • Michael M. Richter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3096)


When developing large software products many verbal and written interactions take place. In such interactions the use of abstract and uncertain expressions is considered advantageous. Traditionally, this is not the case for statements which are imprecise in the sense of being vague or subjective. In this paper we argue that such statements should not only be tolerated but, often, they can be very useful in interaction. For this purpose we relate abstraction, uncertainty and impreciseness to each other by investigating the differences and common properties. We also discuss the relation to the use of common sense implementations in Artificial Intelligence. The introduction of degrees of impreciseness leads to the question of finding an optimal level. This is interpreted as a learning problem for software organizations. The success can be measured in terms of different cost factors. The design of evaluation experiments is shown as an interdisciplinary task.


Software Engineering Graphic Tool Agile Method Common Background Aesthetic Aspect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., Austin, G.: A Study of Thinking. Wiley, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hussmann, H.: Indirect Use of Formal methods in Software Engineering, Online (last accessed March 1, 2004)
  4. 4.
    Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mervis, C., Rosch, E.: Categorization of Natural Objects. Annual Review in Psychology 32, 89–115 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schach, S.: Object-oriented and Classical Software Engineering, 5/e, p. 36. McGraw-Hill, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stroustrup, B.: Interview to Artima, September 2003, Online (last accessed March 1, 2004)
  9. 9.
    Wache, H.: Semantische Mediation für heterogene Informationsquellen. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Aka GmbH, Dissertationen zur Künstlichen Intelligenz, Berlin (in German), Online (last accessed March 1, 2004)
  10. 10.
    Wiederhold, G.: Mediators in the Architecture of Future Information Systems. IEEE Computer 25(3), 38–49 (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grigori Melnik
    • 1
  • Michael M. Richter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations