{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025510204081632654, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008746355685131196, 'mean_word_length': 5.665048543689321, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development : Identification and Repair of Weak Definitions

Communication in Software Development: Identification and Repair of Weak Definitions Kimberly S. Wasson, John C. Knight Department of Computer Science University of Virginia 151 Engineer’s Way Charlottesville, VA 22904-4740 {kwasson,knight}@cs.virginia.edu Achieving validity in a software artifact depends critically on the ability of developers to understand the intentions of stakeholders. Miscommunication of domain-specific concepts can result in severe consequences, especially for safety-critical systems. Many development processes thus advocate the presence of a glossary to record the meanings of project-critical terms. However, limited guidance exists for the construction of good definitions that adequately communicate what particular domain-specific words and phrases mean. In this work, we offer a taxonomy of weaknesses in definitions, and propose a method for constructing better ones. We then analyze concepts specific to the domain of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), a type of heart pump. We compare publicly available definitions to those we have constructed with our method, with respect to the weaknesses outlined. It is shown that our method produces higher-quality definitions more likely to allow correct interpretation by developers not expert in cardiac therapy terminology.