[E-Lang] ERTP-aware MintMaker

Jonathan S. Shapiro shap@cs.jhu.edu
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:59:25 -0500

Tyler Close wrote:
> What would we have to do to make this a
> "rigorous and systematic" review as well? Specifically, could you show
> me what a "rigorous and systematic" review of either my, or Markm's,
> ERTP looks like? I have some ideas for what this review should look
> like (that I presented at the EFCE conference), but I'm wondering if
> you know of some pre-existing science here.

The brief answer is: no, I cannot show you what it would look like in
the time that I have available at the moment, but...

I would suggest starting by adopting the process describes in the common
criteria. This provides both a uniform methodology of specification and
a uniform methodology of evaluation. I'm not "methodology happy", but in
this case there is a clear benefit to a widely accepted method: third
party comprehension of how the evaluation was performed, what it
achieved, and the degree of confidence one can assign.