Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 51:
: Also, I've never heard that there are multiple forms so until you provide some reliable source to support your claim it makes no sense to include the phrase. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised by your suggestion that there are not multiple forms. I assume that that is the reason for two related and overlapping Wikipedia articles. A simple search will reveal multiple variations, from the German V-Modell, to the US government version, and all sorts of more loosely defined versions, which are no more than illustrations of the the software development lifecycle. Indeed, the two illustrations in this article contradict each other. They illustrate models that are similar but different. The phases are different and the arrows linking the different levels go in different directions. The first diagram contradicts the structuring of the article in Verification Phases and Validation Phases. What is the novice who is looking for guidance to make of that?
One could argue that the Forsberg & Mooz version is the definitive V-Model, but unfortunately that source isn't available online, and it is largely irrelevant to the great majority of people who discuss the V-Model out in the field. There is huge confusion about the V-Model because of these variations, and pretending that this is not so merely adds to the confusion of people who come looking for guidance, often having come across a simplified form in an exam syllabus and then looking for further information.
The article, in its current form, doesn't describe the V-Model. It describes an approach that would be more or less consistent with the V-Model. One could amend the article in countless ways. It would still be consistent with the V-Model, but it wouldn't be '''''''the''''''' V-Model. In attempting to provide extra detail and nail down a precise form of the V-Model I think the current article is just making the confusion worse. The section
The anonymous edit was by me, because I hadn't noticed I was not logged in. However, I didn't restore anything you removed. I merely clarified a point I had made and which you hadn't touched. [[User:Freddie Threepwood|Freddie Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Freddie Threepwood|talk]]) 16:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
|