Dr. Smith's Re-review of Tools section

[samm82]

This chapter is now ready for review! In particular:

• Do you have the prerequisite knowledge from previous chapters to understand everything (namely Terminology)?
• Do I have enough/too many forward/backward references?
• Have I formalized my graphs enough? Are there more areas for formalization I've overlooked?
  I think we should tackle this separately (Formalize Relations #170); since it will touch multiple chapters and is still in progress, ignore these parts of this chapter!

[smiths]

Thank you for creating the issue @samm82. I have a mountain of marking to get through (for my grad class), so I'll hold off on reviewing for a bit. Please continue to let me know the status of your edits.

[samm82]

Writing a new comment to make sure you get pinged @smiths, but this chapter is now ready for review! See above for more details

[smiths]

Sounds good @samm82. I'll have more time for reviewing once the capstone course gets through their expo. That is happening on Tuesday.

[smiths]

@samm82, I'll attach my comments on the tools chapter. My big picture feedback is as follows:

• the tools chapter will have to be made consistent with your terminology revisions. I'm sure you already know that. :-)
• the forward and backward references can be overwhelming. I like your emphasis on traceability, but the chapter on tools should stand on its own. If the reader doesn't want to follow the links to other chapters, or to the appendix, they shouldn't have to. Where this shows up the most is when you use the link as the identifying label for something. For instance, you point to Table 5.1, without saying what the content is for Table 5.1. The reader has to follow the link. Instead, you should characterize the content of Table 5.1 in your tools chapter. In parentheses, you can still have a pointer to Table 5.1, but it should only have the purpose of providing traceability.

Sam-Ch4-Tools-Fdbck.pdf