Processes writing research paper

    ��  
         
                    Burleson is the American Team Note: This Oracle documentation was created as a support and Oracle training reference for use by our DBA performance tuning consulting professionals.  Feel free to ask questions on our Oracle forum . Verify experience! Anyone considering using the services of an Oracle support expert should independently investigate their credentials and experience, and not rely on advertisements and self-proclaimed expertise. All legitimate Oracle experts publish their Oracle qualifications . Errata?   Oracle technology is changing and we strive to update our BC Oracle support information.  If you find an error or have a suggestion for improving our content, we would appreciate your feedback.  Just  e-mail:   and include the URL for the page.
                     








Burleson Consulting

The Oracle of Database Support Oracle Performance Tuning Remote DBA Services
  Copyright © 1996 -  2016

A special situation exists when a subject seems not to agree with its predicate. For instance, when we want each student to see his or her counselor (and each student is assigned to only one counselor), but we want to avoid that "his or her" construction by pluralizing, do we say "Students must see their counselors " or "Students must see their counselor "? The singular counselor is necesssary to avoid the implication that students have more than one counselor apiece. Do we say "Many sons dislike their father or fathers "? We don't mean to suggest that the sons have more than one father, so we use the singular father. Theodore Bernstein, in Dos, Don'ts and Maybes of English Usage , says that "Idiomatically the noun applying to more than one person remains in the singular when (a) it represents a quality or thing possessed in common ("The audience's curiosity was aroused"); or (b) it is an abstraction ("The judges applied their reason to the problem"), or (c) it is a figurative word ("All ten children had a sweet tooth ") (203). Sometimes good sense will have to guide you. We might want to say "Puzzled, the children scratched their head" to avoid the image of multi-headed children, but "The audience rose to their foot" is plainly ridiculous and about to tip over.

Students’ narrative skills continue to grow in these grades. The Standards require that students be able to incorporate narrative elements effectively into arguments and informative/explanatory texts. In history/social studies, students must be able to incorporate narrative accounts into their analyses of individuals or events of historical import. In science and technical subjects, students must be able to write precise enough descriptions of the step-by-step procedures they use in their investigations or technical work that others can replicate them and (possibly) reach the same results.

Hi Geri:Thanks for the article and for solctiiing feedback. I have only limited time available for that, so what follows is out of necessity just “shooting from the hip” rather than something more comprehensive. Nevertheless, I hope it is of some “We can look at a definition of requirement from some reliable source such as IEEE or IIBA. But that does not really solve the problem. It is in the practical application of the definition that we find our understanding varies from one stakeholder to another.” You seem to suggest there is a “problem” with the definitions of a requirement offered by these “reliable” sources, but you don’t demonstrate what that problem is. At minimum, you might want to quote those definitions and point out why you believe they pose a problem that needs to be solved. Moreover, what is your own definition of a requirement, such that it applies to the breadth of the requirements you deal with in this article? This article strikes me as essentially making the case that virtually everything we articulate during the software engineering process (from identifying the earliest business requirements to deploying the actual software) can be seen as some kind of requirement. In other words, you’re engaged in an exercise of abstracting to a requirements perspective the meaning of activities and deliverables that traditionally have been given more specific names (., use case modeling, user interface design, object modeling, data modeling, gathering non-functional requirements, program design, etc.). In that light, it would be helpful, I believe, if you cross-reference the “abstract requirements” views to the corresponding “concrete deliverable” perspectives, so people can relate the two. It would also underline your point that we “make a fundamental mistake on a software project when we ask all stakeholders to work from the same form of the requirements”. Abstracting anything is only useful if the abstraction provides a means for expressing certain principles more easily or clearly than without the abstraction. I believe your abstraction that “everything is some kind of requirement” provides a great opportunity to express that we’re essentially dealing with a requirements hierarchy, where one or more “sub” requirements trace back to one or more “super” requirements (you’re dealing with this in at least one specific context on page 8 when you write you want to “make sure every requirement is being implemented somewhere”). To put it differently, we’re moving up and down a hierarchy of interlocking requirements where a “super” requirement is an “end” and the corresponding “sub” requirements are “means” towards that end. This is another way of describing Alistair Cockburn’s notion of a hierarchy of goals (see his book Writing Effective Use Cases, chapter 5) and would be one way to “show how the different kinds of requirements are related” (page 1 of your article). At the top of page 4 you write “until I feel comfortable that I have captured everything the business stakeholders know etc.”. Would an additional check be that those stakeholders also must “feel comfortable” that you “have captured everything” they “know etc.”?That’s all the time I have. Take care. Regards, Willem

Processes writing research paper

processes writing research paper

Hi Geri:Thanks for the article and for solctiiing feedback. I have only limited time available for that, so what follows is out of necessity just “shooting from the hip” rather than something more comprehensive. Nevertheless, I hope it is of some “We can look at a definition of requirement from some reliable source such as IEEE or IIBA. But that does not really solve the problem. It is in the practical application of the definition that we find our understanding varies from one stakeholder to another.” You seem to suggest there is a “problem” with the definitions of a requirement offered by these “reliable” sources, but you don’t demonstrate what that problem is. At minimum, you might want to quote those definitions and point out why you believe they pose a problem that needs to be solved. Moreover, what is your own definition of a requirement, such that it applies to the breadth of the requirements you deal with in this article? This article strikes me as essentially making the case that virtually everything we articulate during the software engineering process (from identifying the earliest business requirements to deploying the actual software) can be seen as some kind of requirement. In other words, you’re engaged in an exercise of abstracting to a requirements perspective the meaning of activities and deliverables that traditionally have been given more specific names (., use case modeling, user interface design, object modeling, data modeling, gathering non-functional requirements, program design, etc.). In that light, it would be helpful, I believe, if you cross-reference the “abstract requirements” views to the corresponding “concrete deliverable” perspectives, so people can relate the two. It would also underline your point that we “make a fundamental mistake on a software project when we ask all stakeholders to work from the same form of the requirements”. Abstracting anything is only useful if the abstraction provides a means for expressing certain principles more easily or clearly than without the abstraction. I believe your abstraction that “everything is some kind of requirement” provides a great opportunity to express that we’re essentially dealing with a requirements hierarchy, where one or more “sub” requirements trace back to one or more “super” requirements (you’re dealing with this in at least one specific context on page 8 when you write you want to “make sure every requirement is being implemented somewhere”). To put it differently, we’re moving up and down a hierarchy of interlocking requirements where a “super” requirement is an “end” and the corresponding “sub” requirements are “means” towards that end. This is another way of describing Alistair Cockburn’s notion of a hierarchy of goals (see his book Writing Effective Use Cases, chapter 5) and would be one way to “show how the different kinds of requirements are related” (page 1 of your article). At the top of page 4 you write “until I feel comfortable that I have captured everything the business stakeholders know etc.”. Would an additional check be that those stakeholders also must “feel comfortable” that you “have captured everything” they “know etc.”?That’s all the time I have. Take care. Regards, Willem

Media:

processes writing research paperprocesses writing research paperprocesses writing research paperprocesses writing research paper