-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Description
Since the proposal below has been approved, now what's left is to actually implement this, which includes the following (partially migrated from #143):
- Approach Categories
- Elaborate on ChatGPT prompt
- Make it more clear what words like "this" or "these terms" refer to
- Rigidity
- Do I "really need" the forward references to Tables 4.4 and 4.6?
In #129, Dr. Smith mentions that I should have added the intro blurb of Procedure (Sec. 2.3) to the intro of Methodology (Ch. 2), since he "didn't know what you meant by 'glossaries' until [this intro blurb]". There are some "results" that snuck in to this text that will be handled in #143.
I'm thinking it might be better to have Terminology be its own section (Ch. 2) to define what we mean by "test approach", "synonym", "parent', "child", "implicit", and (eventually) "flaw". This gives the reader the nomenclature that they need to understand the rest of the document and can refer back to if necessary. I think this also makes sense since the terminology (should!) be completely independent of our procedure, which we can then verify to ensure that this change is beneficial. After splitting out Terminology, we could then "promote" the Procedure section and merge it with Methodology (now Ch. 3) to bring these related chunks of content together (as per Dr. Smith's review).
| Current Structure | Proposed Structure |
|---|---|
|
|
Honestly, I'm pretty convinced that this is the right move, but want some other eyes on it in case I'm missing something and want to keep you all in the loop!
Sub-issues
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Projects
Status