From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-30 06:50:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner Date: 30 Jun 2003 06:50:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3EFC6FC2.B96DAEA4@adaworks.com> <1056731513.272294@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.152.82.221 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1056981001 570 127.0.0.1 (30 Jun 2003 13:50:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Jun 2003 13:50:01 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39928 Date: 2003-06-30T13:50:01+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote: >The investigation board thought that the was inadequately >documented, so that the reusers did not realize that the was >present. Interesting turn. Let me recall your own quotaion from the report (from your posting 23.06.2003 12:00:28 PST) : "No reference to justification of this decision was found directly in the source code. Given the large amount of documentation associated with any industrial application, the assumption, although agreed, was essentially obscured, though not deliberately, from any external review." So, the report says that the assumption was essentially obscured because of large amount of documentation, This means that the assumption *was* documented, I think. Do you think otherwise? So, if we agree that the assumption *was* documented then the problem moves to another area - organization of the documentation for the whole system. Also, don't you think that there is something wrong in organization when the source code has to be explored in a search for justification of some decision, and at the same time a present one cannot be find in documentation because of "large amount" of the latter? Should we consider source code as documenation for documentation? >That's the Y2K problem in a nutshell. It's not just that two-digit years >were used, it's that no one remembered *where* they were used. That was in Y2K, right. But there was nothing similar in Ariane 5 case: they did not expect any problems with reuse of SRI software. If they suspected anything like that, there was no obstacles for identifying and locating the problem. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia