Verification is the process of checking a software product. Verification - what is it in simple words? Why is verification needed? How verification differs from validation
Saint Petersburg
State Electrotechnical University
Department of MOEM
by discipline
“Software Development Process”
“Software Verification”
Saint Petersburg
Purpose of verification………………………………………………………………… page 3
Introductory remarks……………………………………………………………….. page 3
Special and General Targets………………………………………….. page 4
Expected practice by targets……………………………………… page 4
SG1 Preparing for Verification…………………………………………………..... page 4
SG2 Conducting examinations (peer assessment)………………………… page 7
SG3 Implementation of Verification………………………………………………..... page 9
Appendix 1. Overview of automation tools for the verification process……….. page 11
Annex 2. Main modern approaches to verification…………….. page 12
List of used literature……………………………………………….. page 14
An integrated model of excellence and maturity
VERIFICATION
(Maturity level 3)
Target
The purpose of verification is providing assurance that the selected middleware or end product meets the specified requirements.
water notes
Verification of software products is verification of the finished product or its intermediate versions to meet the original requirements. This implies not only testing the program itself, but also auditing the project, user and technical documentation, etc.
The purpose of software system verification is to identify and report errors that may be made during the life cycle stages. Main tasks of verification:
determining the compliance of high-level requirements with system requirements;
taking into account high-level requirements in the system architecture;
compliance with the architecture and requirements for it in the source code;
determining the compliance of the executable code with the requirements for the system;
determination of the means used to solve the above tasks, which are technically correct and sufficiently complete.
Verification includes verification of finished products and verification of intermediate products against all selected requirements, including customer requirements, requirements for finished products and requirements for its individual components.
Verification is inherently an incremental (incremental) process from the moment of its inception throughout the development of products and all work on products. Verification begins with the verification of requirements, then follows the verification of all intermediate products at various stages of their development and manufacture, and ends with the verification of the final product.
Verification of intermediate products at each stage of their development and manufacture significantly increases the likelihood that the final product will meet the requirements of the customer, the requirements for the finished product and the requirements for its individual components.
Verification and Validation of processes are essentially related processes, aimed, however, at obtaining different results. The purpose of Validation is to demonstrate that the finished product actually fulfills its original purpose. Verification is aimed at making sure that the product exactly meets certain requirements. In other words, Verification ensures that “ you do it right”, and Validation is that “ you are doing the right thing”.
Verification should be implemented as early as possible in relevant processes (such as delivery, development, operation, or maintenance) to evaluate cost effectiveness and performance. This process may include analysis, verification and testing (testing).
This process can be performed with varying degrees of independence of the performers. The degree of independence of performers can be distributed both between different entities in the organization itself, and entities in another organization, with different degrees of distribution of responsibilities. This process is called the process independent verification if the implementing organization is independent of the vendor, developer, operator, or maintainers.
Expert assessments (expertise) are an important part of verification as a well-established tool for effective defect elimination. An important takeaway from this is the need to develop a deeper understanding and understanding of the working versions of the product, as well as the workflows used to identify possible defects and create an opportunity for improvements if necessary.
Examinations include a methodical study of the work performed by experts in order to identify defects and other required changes.
The main methods of expert assessment are:
inspection
end-to-end structural control
3. Special and General Targets
3.1 Special targets:
SG 1 Get ready for verification
SG 2
SG 3
3.2 General targets:
GG1 Achieve special goals
GG2 Install a managed process
GG 3 Put a certain process
GG 4 Supply a Quantified Process
GG 5 Set up an optimization process
4. Expected practice by target
SG 1 Get ready for verification
To carry out verification in its entirety, preparation for verification is necessary to ensure that all levels of verification are manageable. Verification includes review, testing, analysis and demonstration. Preliminary verification confirms (verifies) that all the “providing” verification (those conditions that ensure its successful implementation) are embedded in the requirements for the product and for the work on the product.
Verification methods include (but are not limited to) inspection, peer review, audit, end-to-end structural control, analysis, modeling, testing and demonstration.
Preparation also entails identifying all support tools, test equipment and software, simulations, prototypes, and so on.
In general, at this stage, the following range of main tasks can be distinguished:
The need for verification work in the project and the degree of organizational independence in carrying out this work should be determined. Design requirements should be analyzed for criticality. Criticality can be assessed in terms of:
the potential for an undetected error in a system or software requirement resulting in death or injury to personnel, mission failure, financial loss, or catastrophic destruction of equipment;
the perfection of the programming technology used and the risks associated with its use;
availability of funds and resources.
If the project includes verification activities, a verification process should be established to verify the software product.
If the project involves independent verification work, a qualified organization responsible for conducting verification should be selected. This organization must be guaranteed independence and authority in carrying out verification work.
SP1.1-1 Set up a verification strategy
An organization-wide verification strategy for selected work products should be established and maintained.
A verification strategy is created in order to establish the specified activities related to the products of the activities to be verified. This process translates into specific, detailed strategies and procedures for the verification of work products.
Requirements and strategies for verification are usually documented. The verification strategy addresses the specified activities, sources, and environment required to carry out the verification of work products. This is somewhat different from the verification plans indicated by general planning practices and processes. Common practices define the tasks of the processes, who is responsible for them, and the main resources required. On the contrary, the verification strategy specifies technical approach to work product verification and the specified approaches to be used for verification.
A verification strategy typically begins with an examination of the requirements for the product and its components to ensure that these requirements are verifiable.
For software development
Verification methods may include the following:
Service area testing
Operational and limit testing
Decision table based testing
Testing Based on Functional Decomposition
Testing Reuse Cases
Alpha and Beta testing
Testing the operational (working) scenario
acceptance tests
For integrated process products
The verification strategy should develop in parallel and iteratively with the development of the product and its components.
SP1.1-2 Set up the verification environment
A verification environment must be set up to allow verification to take place. The verification environment can either be acquired, or developed, or reused, or changed, or a combination of all of the above, depending on the needs of the project.
The type of verification environment required will be determined by the verification criteria and the verification methods used.
The main (typical) products of work:
Verification equipment
Verification environment
Auxiliary work:
1. Identify requirements for the verification environment
2. Identify resources available for reuse or modification for verification
3. Identify equipment and verification tools
4. Purchase hardware and software used to support verification work
SP1.1-3 Define detailed verification plans
At this stage, it is necessary to perform the following work:
Planned activities in the life cycle and software products requiring verification should be identified based on an analysis of the scope, size, complexity and criticality of the project. Verification activities and tasks for software products verified in the life cycle of work, including appropriate methods, techniques and tools, should be selected.
A verification plan shall be developed and documented based on the identified verification objectives. The plan should refer to works and software products verified in the life cycle; contain the required verification tasks for each object; determine the appropriate resources, responsibilities and schedule for the work. The plan should include procedures for communicating verification reports to the client and other interested parties.
A verification plan must be implemented. Problems and inconsistencies identified during verification should be entered into the problem resolution process (Subclause 6.8). All problems that have arisen must be resolved, and any discrepancies found must be eliminated. The results of verification work should be available to the customer and other organizations participating in the contract.
Auxiliary work:
1. Plan for many comprehensive, integrated verification activities
2. Develop and upgrade the quality of verification criteria as needed
3. To verify each work, define verification methods
4. Define the expected result
SG 2 Conduct peer review
Expert evaluation includes inspection of products with experts in order to identify defects to be eliminated and indicate places for making other necessary changes.
Peer review is primarily used for the output of project work, but can also be used for work such as documentation, etc.
SP2.1-1 Prepare for peer review
Preparatory work for the examination usually includes the determination of the circle of persons who will carry out the examination (performed for each work subjected to examination), the identification of the main reviewers (observers) whose participation in the examination will be necessary, the preparation and updating of any materials that will be used in during examinations as checklists and review criteria (examinations), as well as scheduling examinations.
Main products of work:
Peer review schedule
Peer Review Checklist
Input and output criteria for work products
Criteria for rechecking
Training material for peer assessment
Selected products of works subject to expert evaluation
Auxiliary work:
1. Determine what type of peer review will be conducted
Examples of possible types:
end-to-end structural control
2. Determine the requirements for the information collected during the peer review
3. Set and maintain entry and exit criteria for selected work products
4. Establish and maintain criteria for cross-checking selected work products
5. Establish and maintain a checklist to ensure that selected work products are inspected uniformly
6. Ensure that the output of the work satisfies the entry criteria for examination before these works are sent for examination.
7. Distribute the products of the work to be inspected and related information among the participants in the examination in advance in order to enable them to prepare adequately for the examination.
8. Assign roles for expertise.
Role Options :
leader (head of expertise)
reader
recorder
SP2.2-1 Manage peer review
One of the goals of review management is the desire to identify and remove defects as early in the life cycle as possible. Reviews are performed incrementally, as intermediate products are developed, and not at the very end of the life cycle. Such examinations will not be controlled.
Reviews are performed on the key activities of the specification, development, testing, supporting documentation, and planning phases (eg, software development planning, risk management planning, or test planning).
The main attention of the examination should be given to the products of the work to be inspected, and not to the person who sold these products.
The results and conclusions of the examination should be reported to the main developer of this product of work for its possible correction.
Examinations should be guided by the following principles: sufficient preparation should be carried out, the process should be managed and controlled, essential information obtained during the examinations should be recorded, and the actions (works) carried out during the examination should also be recorded.
Main products of work:
Expertise results
Expert opinion
Information obtained during the examination
Auxiliary work:
1. Carry out assigned roles during the examination
2. Identify and document defects and other results in work products
3. Record the results of the examination and document the actions taken
4. Collect information (data) during the examination
5. Report the decisions of the examinations to the organizers of the joint case (leading developers of the work products)
6. Plan for re-examinations if products meet their criteria
7. Ensure Exit Criteria Are Satisfied
8. Assign roles for expertise.
Role Options :
leader (head of expertise)
reader
recorder
SP2.3-2 Analyze the information received
SG 3 Verify selected works
SP3.1-1 Verify
Typical production of works:
Verification results
Verification reports
Demonstrations
Auxiliary work:
1. Verify COTS and reusable components against specified requirements
2. Perform product verification in accordance with the chosen verification strategy and procedures
3. Record the results of verification work
Verification criteria:
In general, the following criteria of the verification process at its various stages can be distinguished:
Process Verification
The process must be verified against the following criteria:
compliance and timeliness of establishing project requirements for planning;
suitability, feasibility, feasibility in accordance with the plan and the terms of the contract of the processes selected for the project;
applicability of standards, procedures and conditions to design processes;
staffing and training of personnel in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Requirements Verification
Requirements must be verified against the following criteria:
consistency, feasibility and testability of system requirements;
distribution of system requirements between the objects of hardware and software and manual operations in accordance with the project;
consistency, feasibility, testability and accuracy of reflecting system requirements in software requirements;
the correctness, confirmed by appropriate methods, of the requirements for software for safety, protection and criticality.
Project Verification
The project must be verified according to the following criteria:
the correctness of the project, its compliance with the established requirements and the consideration of these requirements in the project;
feasibility in the project of the corresponding sequence of events, initial data, output results, interfaces, logic, distribution of time and material resources, as well as detection, localization and recovery of errors;
the ability to select a project based on established requirements;
the correctness, confirmed by appropriate methods, of the implementation in the project of safety, protection and other critical requirements.
Program verification
The program must be verified according to the following criteria:
taking into account the project conditions and established requirements in the program; its testability, correctness and compliance with established requirements and programming standards;
feasibility in the program: appropriate sequence of events, appropriate interfaces, correct data and control logic; distribution of time and material resources; detection, localization and recovery of errors, as well as its completeness:
the ability to choose a program based on the project or established requirements;
the correctness, confirmed by appropriate methods, of the implementation in the program of safety, security and other critical requirements.
Build Verification
The assembly must be verified against the following criteria:
completeness and correctness of the assembly of software components and modules of each software object into the corresponding software object;
completeness and correctness of the assembly of technical and software objects and manual operations into the system;
execution of build tasks according to the build plan.
Document verification
Documentation must be verified against the following criteria:
compliance, completeness and consistency of documentation;
timely preparation of documentation;
adherence to established configuration management procedures document
SP3.2-2 Analyze verification results and determine corrective actions
To determine the degree of acceptability, the actual results should be compared with the established verification criteria.
The results of the analysis are recorded as evidence that the verification was controlled.
Analytical reports may also indicate that poor verification results are due to a lack of methodologies, criteria, or problems in the infrastructure.
Main products of work:
Analytical report (statistics, discrepancy analysis, comparison of the behavior of real products and their models, deviations, etc.)
A set of corrective measures to correct identified deficiencies
SP3.3-1 Re-Verify (Re-Verify)
Re-verification is carried out to ensure that the defects have been eliminated and the output of the work has not been damaged (spoiled) as a result of corrective actions.
Re-verification, as a rule, focuses in detail on those parts of the work products in which certain defects were found.
Appendix 1. Overview of automation tools for the verification process
There are many products on the market that automate the verification process. These include Purify, TestCenter, Logiscope, and more. Verilog's Logiscope suite is a family of tools (TestChecker, CodeChecker, RuleChecker, ImpactChecker, and Viewer) with a common goal: to help users improve the quality and conduct comprehensive testing of the software they create. The idea behind the product source code analysis. Its latest version is capable of processing code written in more than 80 languages, including C, C++, Pascal, Cobol, Fortran, PL1, ADA, and even Intel and Motorola assembly languages. The results of the analysis are presented in the form of numerical indicators (metrics, of which there are more than 50 types), which make it possible to judge the quality of the program source code. The TestChecker component monitors the behavior of the program under test during its execution and, in the course of its work, builds call trees, execution profiles, marks non-callable functions and non-executable procedures. Logiscope supports a reverse engineering feature that can be used to reconstruct the structure of a program from object code, which is useful for understanding the logic of its operation and the nature of the data used.
Especially for professional C and C++ programmers, the TestCenter program from CenterLine is designed. It follows from the statistical data that during normal testing only 40 - 50% of the total program code is checked for "feasibility". This is explained by the fact that with traditional, "manual" testing, it is impossible to check the operation of the program with all possible combinations of initial data or to simulate rare errors such as out of memory. With such testing procedures, it is difficult to talk about the high quality of finished programs. The TestCenter package allows you to organize global software testing at an industrial level, and make testing itself a natural part of the development process due to its direct integration with other well-known tool shells (SPARCworks, SoftBench, ObjectCenter and ObjectCode).
In the process of debugging/testing programs, TestCenter shows lines of source code that are not executed during the test, uninitialized memory areas, memory that was reserved but not used, used but not freed, cases of incorrect use of malloc / free operators, etc. Error Simulator (Error Simulator) can generate rare and hard-to-debug errors like disk full (no disk space) or the mentioned out of memory, and the API simulator (Simulator API) can generate interface errors, such as incorrect order of arguments when calling functions or incorrect return code. When using the TestCenter, there is no need to recompile programs, and for the Error Simulator to work, you don’t even need the source code of the program under test.
The two concepts of validation and verification are often confused. In addition, system requirements validation is often confused with system validation. I suggest looking into this issue.
In the article Modeling an Object as a Whole and as a Composition, I discussed two approaches to modeling an object: as a whole and as a structure. In the current article, we will need this division.
Suppose we have a designed functional object. Let this object be considered by us as a part of the construction of another functional Object. Let there be a description of the construction of the Object, such that it contains a description of the object. In such a description, the object has a description as a whole, that is, its interfaces of interaction with other objects are described within the framework of the Object's construction. Let the description of the object as a structure be given. Let there be an information object containing requirements for the design of the description of the object as a structure. Let there be a body of knowledge that contains inference rules, on the basis of which a description of the object as a structure is obtained from the description of the object as a whole. The body of knowledge is what designers are taught in institutes - a lot, a lot of knowledge. They allow, on the basis of knowledge about the object, to design its structure.
So, you can start. We can assert that if the object as a whole is correctly described, if the body of knowledge is correct, and if the rules of inference were observed, then the resulting description of the object's construction will be correct. That is, on the basis of this description, a functional object corresponding to the actual operating conditions will be built. What risks may arise:
1. Use of incorrect knowledge about the Object. The model of the Object in people's minds may not correspond to reality. They did not know the real danger of earthquakes, for example. Accordingly, the requirements for the object may be incorrectly formulated.
2. Incomplete record of knowledge about the Object - something is missed, mistakes are made. For example, they knew about the winds, but forgot to mention it. This may lead to an insufficiently complete description of the requirements for the object.
3. Wrong body of knowledge. We were taught the priority of mass over other parameters, but it turned out that we had to increase speed.
4. Incorrect application of inference rules to the object description. Logical errors, something is missing in the requirements for the object design, the requirements trace is broken.
5. Incomplete record of the obtained conclusions about the design of the system. Everything was taken into account, everything was calculated, but they forgot to write.
6. The created system does not match the description.
It is clear that all project artifacts appear, as a rule, in their completed form only by the end of the project, and even then not always. But, if we assume that the development is waterfall, then the risks are as I described. Checking each risk is a specific operation that can be given a name. If anyone is interested, you can try to come up with and voice these terms.
What is verification? In Russian, verification is a check for compliance with the rules. The rules are in the form of a document. That is, there should be a document with documentation requirements. If the documentation meets the requirements of this document, then it has passed verification.
What is validation? In Russian, validation is the verification of the correctness of the conclusions. That is, there should be a body of knowledge that describes how to get a description of a design based on object data. Checking the correctness of the application of these conclusions is validation. Validation is, among other things, checking the description for consistency, completeness, and comprehensibility.
Requirements validation is often confused with the validation of a product built on those requirements. It's not worth doing that.
Hello, dear readers of the blog site. The words validation and verification came into the Russian language relatively recently (unlike, for example, or) along with international standards for the development and acceptance of products and technologies. In this regard, as usual, there is some confusion with the translation of technical terms into Russian and their interpretation.
In addition to directly technological processes, the words verification and validation are actively used on the Internet, for example, when registering in payment systems (, etc.), where in order to link a plastic card to an account, it may be necessary to go through the process of its verification (verification). The owners of the sites know that in a special service for compliance with the requirements.
You may also be interested in the meaning of the word validation due to the fact that when you enter Contact, My World or Odnoklassniki, a window pops up with the requirement validate your account by entering a phone number or sending SMS. As a rule, this is the result of a virus that has infected your computer, so a little lower we will touch on this one, as well as options for solving it.
What is verification and how is it different from validation?
Let me try to explain in simple terms the meaning originally laid down in these words, because the technical translation that you can find, for example, on Wikipedia (verification and validation) is of little use if you are not an expert in this field and have never encountered anything like this .
So what are these tricky words? As I have already said, a direct translation of the interpretation of terms leads to the fact that validation and verification seem to us to be synonymous words and mean verification (in fact, this is often the case at the everyday level). However, there is a difference between them, and a cardinal one.
Let's for the general development I will try to explain the difference. Word Verification(from English verification) means checking or testing. Whatever technological process is taken (manufacturing of a mechanical product, writing software, etc.), then verification will mean checking the correctness and quality of all manufacturing stages. If a bicycle was assembled, then the presence of all the necessary elements (steering wheel, pedals, frame, etc.) and their compliance with the quality parameters specified in the terms of reference will be checked.
The word validation(from English validation) is closest to the concept of certification, and in fact means a comprehensive check of the product to the requirements of the customer by himself. If a bicycle was assembled, it will be validated after the customer’s representatives ride it and recognize it as satisfying their “Wishlist”.
What is the difference? We can say that validation is testing the product for physical functionality in the process of transferring it to the customer (the bike rides or not - tests are carried out), and verification is the same testing, but “paper” for compliance of the product with the technical specifications (exactly the same the presence of pedals, wheels and handlebars of a bicycle), and it is carried out even before the transfer of the product or software product to the customer.
This is certainly a gross simplification, but it allows us to explain the difference between the concepts of simple and accessible to all words.
Another "rough" example. Suppose a new drug has been developed. Its formula and TK are transferred to the factory. Upon completion of the work, the Contractor checks (verifies) its chemical composition and quality for compliance with the TOR (technical specifications). The customer, on the other hand, validates the received medicine by testing its effect on patients or mice. If the desired effect is achieved, and the side effects are within the forecasts, then the drug will be successfully validated (certified).
The same goes for software. The contractor performs the work, verifies that the functionality of the software complies with the terms of reference, and now the customer installs the software at home and looks to see if it performs the task assigned to it or not. The decision to validate or send for revision will depend on the results.
In other words. Verification is a confirmation that the task was completed in full accordance with the requirements of the customer. And validation is a check of whether the resulting product (product) functions as it should in practice. A situation may arise when the TOR is completed, but the product does not work or does not work as it should. Therefore, the validation process is more comprehensive and revealing than verification (the "validated" stamp is placed over the "verified" stamp, so to speak).
Validation and verification in online Internet services?
Most likely, the above explanations did not touch you deeply, because you needed to know the meaning of these words for a completely different reason (outside the framework of the customer-executor relationship). Let me guess why?
Well, maybe you got a virus on your computer and now the pop-up window “Pass validation” does not let you into any social network. You vaguely guess that giving your phone number or sending SMS is not the best solution to the problem, therefore, on the topic “what is validation”. I’ll say in advance that you don’t need to send anything, but you need to clean the computer and bring the Hosts file back to its original form. We will talk about this in more detail below.
It is also possible that you have registered in some payment system (or other online service), where offer to verify your payment card validate website or something similar. Bourgeois terms seemed to you not too clear and you.
In this case, there is nothing to fear. You may, for example, when trying to link a card to a payment system account, be asked to verify your credit card (check it for the ability to make payments). Usually a small amount is withdrawn from it, and then they ask you to indicate how much was withdrawn. If specified, then the card is verified and it can be used to replenish a virtual account or withdraw funds from it.
The word verification is used here for its intended purpose, i.e. as a synonym for the word verification or testing. Since many services in Runet are created in the image and likeness of previously created bourgeois payment systems, the terminology is often borrowed from there too. In general, here you are offered to simply test the card for performance before using it.
Some services offer to pass the validation procedure, i.e. attestation (confirmation) of your account in order to get more opportunities and rights. This is usually expressed in confirming your identity (you need to send a scan of your passport; either with a computer screen where the service page is open; or indicate a phone number and then enter the code received via SMS). All this is quite often called validation by service owners, because the word has become quite widespread and has become “fashionable”.
For example, in Yandex Money, I had to go through the validation (identification) process in order to be able to accept payments from some services to my wallet. I had to show my passport and become a kind of certified user of the system. Many social networks ask you to indicate your mobile phone number, and then go through the process of validating / verifying (verifying) it by sending an SMS to it with a code that you will need to enter in a special field on the registration page.
Vkontakte and Odnoklassniki account validation - you have a virus
Pretty lately spread virus, which, when entering popular social networking sites (Vkontakte, Odnoklassniki, My World, etc.), throws out a sign with a message that your account must be validated in the described way.
These are scammers. Very unobtrusively and demandingly, they will extract money from you (paid SMS messages, etc. things), make you install some kind of nasty thing on your computer, or do something else that is not very pleasant. What to do?
First, do not fall for all these tricks. Who asked you for validation - the administration of the social network or an attacker who replaced the page of the social network with the help of a virus? How to check? Pretty simple.
- Look at the address bar in your browser to see if the address of the social network is written there, and not a fake site. If the address is not the same (some letter was replaced or another was found), then simply open the social network page in a new tab from the browser bookmarks or by typing its name in Yandex (Google), and then clicking on the first link provided (it will be).
- If the address is correct, then try logging into your Vkontakte or Odnoklassniki account from another computer (tablet, cell phone). You can also try from the same computer. Did you manage to login? Validation not required? So your computer is infected with a virus and it needs to be treated urgently.
Secondly, you need to start looking for a way to remove the virus, or at least at first neutralize its consequences. If your antivirus is not installed, or it is not active (they did not pay for the next period, did not update the anti-virus database, it was blocked by a virus), then try downloading portable and free version of Doctor Web(I've trusted him for over a decade) and just run a quick check.
Surely he will say that you have changed the Hosts file and offer to fix it. After that, when you enter Contact, Odnoklassniki and other networks, you will no longer be required to validate.
If for some reason this utility didn’t help you (didn’t download, didn’t start, etc.), then you can try it yourself find and clean from superfluous records the so-called hosts file.
The fact is that the virus could write a line in it with the address of the social network and an IP address that was completely unrelated to it. The browser always first accesses the Hosts file on your computer (and only then to the Internet), and if it finds a match between the IP address and the domain (for example, vk.com 109.121.92.15), then it will open the social network site from this IP, and a fake site will already be prepared there, like two drops of water similar to the real one, but which, when you try to enter, will throw out a validation message.
If none of the above helped you, then try other antiviruses or you can restore your operating system from an image if it was previously done, for example, using Acronis. In the worst case, you will either have to take the computer to a specialist, or reinstall Windows yourself, and in the future be as careful as possible and be sure to use anti-virus so that no more validation plates pop up.
Good luck to you! See you soon on the blog pages site
You can watch more videos by going to");">
You may be interested
Likbez - what is it (word meaning) VirusTotal - online virus scan of files on your computer, phone and websites with all antiviruses at the same time 
Outsourcing - what is it in simple words 
Context - what is it? How to install Google Chrome, Yandex Browser, Opera, Mazila and Internet Explorer for free on your computer
in cultural studies (Late Latin verificatio - proof, confirmation of the fidelity or truth of something; from Latin verus - true and facio - I do) - establishing the truth of certain judgments (statements and denials) about culture in knowledge about culture. A similar concept in the field of logic and methodology of science means the process of immediate. or indirect verification of scientific statements in the result of those empiric. observations or experiments, as well as the establishment of logical. relations between directly and indirectly verified statements. The concept of V. was formulated and justified by the logical. positivism (the Vienna Circle), which developed the concept of "scientific philosophy" and Wittgenstein's ideas formulated by him in the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (1921). It is customary to distinguish V. as an actual process of empiricism. verification of the truth of a judgment and verifiability as their potential verifiability (the ability to verify) when defining. conditions or according to formal schemes. According to the principle of verifiability, put forward by logical. positivism, any scientifically meaningful statement about the world is reducible to a set of protocol assumptions that fix the data of pure experience. Ultimately, any knowledge about the world was considered as being reduced by a chain of formal transformations to the sum of elementary sentences that have a logical. (logical-mathematical) consistency and axiomatic. truth (the so-called logical. atomism), and the structure of the world, thus, was determined by the projection of the structure of knowledge, given by the original logical-epistemological. model. According to the late Wittgenstein, the ideal, in terms of V., the logically perfect language of science is the result of a conditional convention, V. which is also very conditional and arbitrary - like some formal rules for conducting a "language game". Hence - the assumption of a plurality of both scientific and everyday languages that are not amenable to unification or generalization; hence the functional understanding of meaning as "use" and so on.
In the humanities, and especially in cultural studies, the problem of V. is even more complicated. Since in culture as a subject of cultural studies. reflections include such different, moreover, specialized forms as science and art, philosophy and religion; as well as socialized forms of culture - political, legal, economic and economic; because in addition to specialization forms of culture, there is also everyday culture (in particular, the way of life and the culture of everyday life), - the V. of cultural phenomena for some reason alone turns out to be impossible. So, for example, science (say, natural science) and religion can occupy fundamental worldviews. issues of mutually exclusive positions; the same to some extent applies to the relationship of art and philosophy, philosophy and religion, science and philosophy, science and art, specialization. forms of culture and everyday culture, socialized. and a specialist forms of culture among themselves. In all these cases, we can and should talk about the plurality of V. themselves - in relation to dec. phenomenal forms of culture, about a kind of "parallel series" of cultural phenomena, verified on fundamentally irreducible grounds and very conventionally "translated", "recoded" from one cultural language to another.
The most paradoxical alliances and contaminations are possible here: relig. justification or refutation of science and scientific explanation or rejection of religion; philosophy of art, philosophy of art and the art of philosophizing; philosophy of common sense, ordinary knowledge and the aesthetics of everyday life, etc., and many of these borderline cultural phenomena coexist with each other in time and space, thereby actually justifying and confirming the pluralism of V. in cultural studies. Thus, by extrapolating the requirements and criteria of intellectual culture, conceptually formalized and complexly structured, into the sphere of the culture of everyday life, amorphous and directly experienced, we voluntarily or involuntarily intellectualize everyday culture, giving its specifically ordinary content a special form. (scientific or philosophical, socio-political, or aesthetic) knowledge. And on the contrary, by imposing on philosophy or: science, art or politics, ideology, the logic and semantic content of everyday consciousness, with its here-and-now-finding, with its pragmatism and visual concreteness, simplicity, general accessibility, self-evidence, we get "non-specialized." philosophy, or rather philosophizing at the level of everyday goals and needs of potentially any subject. Almost every subject of culture is involved (often simultaneously) in several semantic planes of cultural reality: he can be a natural scientist and a deeply religious person, a philosopher (def. , class, party, stratum, group, etc.); accordingly, his judgments about the world and culture may belong to dec. semantic layers of consciousness or make a complex configuration decomp. meanings. The boundless variety of cultural studies is natural. concepts and teachings, not only replacing each other in time, but often contemporary to each other, which does not exclude either their complementarity or mutual polemic. Finally, the very neopr. and the ever-expanding multitude of definitions of culture that are irreducible to each other, as well as its qualitative and semantic differentiation, once again confirms all the natural ambiguity and complexity of V. of the phenomena and processes of culture, in principle, multidimensional.
It should be recognized that cultural knowledge is thinking according to the schemes of many knowledge: it does not exclude either specific scientific, or general scientific, or philosophy. generalizations, but can be completely empirical and rebel against any of its external conceptualizations; it includes pre-reflective, reflective and supra-reflective components that are in a complex, sometimes conflicting interaction; it uses a system of relatively strict concepts and capacious categories (characteristic of discursive thinking in general and science, philosophy in particular), as well as symbols often borrowed from other areas of knowledge, ideas, experiences (for example, mythology and religion, literature and art , everyday practice and ethno-national traditions), as well as scientific disciplines (anthropology and sociology, psychology and semiotics, art history and linguistics, history and literature, sometimes natural and technical sciences), rethinking them in relation to their subject - culture (value-semantic unity), and at the same time refers to figurative-associative and intuitive ideas born in dec. spheres and forms of culture. In this regard, the criteria of scientificity or artistry, abstractness or concreteness, materiality or ideality, objectivity or subjectivity, reliability or fiction, unambiguity or ambiguity, statics and dynamics, universality or particularity, etc. turn out to be equally insufficient, incomplete, not universal. Within the same cultural discourse, the subject of culture (including the researcher) has to simultaneously appeal to two or more measurement systems (including analysis, interpretation and evaluation of the cultural phenomena under consideration), proceed from the ambivalence or fundamental diversity of cultural studies. knowledge.
Theoreticism, ethism (ethics) and aestheticism, undoubtedly, constitute the three most important aspects (dimensions) of any cultural phenomenon or process; in a certain sense, they constitute a more or less organic unity (of the Platonic-Solovievian type: Truth - Good - Beauty); however, in another respect, they also demonstrate, in the words of M. Bakhtin, "the bad incongruence and non-interpenetration of culture and life" ("Philosophy of the Act", 1920-24), being a phenomenon of socio-cultural "polyphonism" and ideological "dialogism" (later Bakhtin's terminology ). The dramatic nature of the relationship between the ethical and the aesthetic in culture (cf. the phenomenon of the Marquis de Sade or Baudelaire's "Flowers of Evil" together with the branched tradition formed by them in literature and art); theoretical and ethical (this is the basis for various philosophical, political, and literary utopias and anti-utopias, as well as conceptual constructions of various kinds in philosophy and religion, in science and technology); aesthetic and theoretical (especially noticeable in the philosophical systems of Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Vl. Solovyov, in the works of Western European romantics and symbolists) confirms that the relationship between theoreticism, ethism and aestheticism is far from harmonious and forms not only cultural "all-unity", but also an equally comprehensive, indomitable struggle of opposites within the triad. Equally dramatic are the consequences of the fundamental split between the "content-meaning" of a given act-activity, the "historical reality" of its being and its "unities, livedness" (M. Bakhtin). And overcoming such a split and its consequences for culture and life turns out to be in itself extremely difficult, ambiguous, requiring the coincidence of many. conditions and intentions of the subject of activity, moreover, feasible and achievable only in the plane of self-awareness of the individual, his personal responsibility, and not culture as a whole.
V. cultural phenomena in cultural studies largely depends on the context in which these phenomena are considered: istor. the context of the emergence and functioning of these phenomena or the modern context (relative to a researcher or other subject of culture); the context of the cultural tradition from which this phenomenon came out, or the context of subsequent cultural innovations; the context of cultural homogeneity (with this phenomenon) or contrast (with it); the context is subjective (dictated by associations or views of the definition of the subject of culture) or objective (associated with the historical era, specific topos, national picture of the world, way of life), etc. The V. of cultural phenomena is ultimately determined by the measure of correspondence between the phenomenon of culture under consideration and the cultural and semantic context of its comprehension. It is clear that the phenomenon of the Middle Ages. alchemy, which is, with modern. t.zr., in the context of scientific views of the 20th century, an unconditional delusion, mysticism, a transformed form of knowledge, was - in the context of the Middle Ages. culture is a fruitful way of primary structuring of knowledge about the world, matter, the general variability of things and a bold breakthrough into the unknown, which laid the foundations for the future sciences of the New Age - chemistry, physics, biology, anthropology, etc. Astrology, metaphysics, theology and many other things in the culture of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance should be evaluated in the same way: these are semantic structures (or whole complexes of semantic structures) that determine the worldview and behavior of the spiritual elite of their time; these semantic structures to the same extent express the culture of def. history era in which mediate its history. certainty in concr. human forms. rationality and related activities. Diff. utopias that arose in the minds of people in different centuries can be evaluated, with modern. t.zr., as "dead-end" projects, useless and even harmful to humanity, etc. its representatives; but within the framework of the culture of their time, they acted as serious and original attempts to reassess the existing reality and go beyond its actual limits, as mechanisms for transforming sociocultural givenness into a new virtual reality. Similarly, in cultural studies, dec. scientific theories, concepts, hypotheses, versions, methodology. approaches: their debatability and openness (conceptual incompleteness) are by no means an indicator of their fallacy or falsity, as well as plausibility or truth - they all act as historically conditioned phenomena concret. cultures, and as such are regular in their content and form - along with others, typologically adjacent, but semantically variant or alternative.
Being inscribed in one or another contain, context, each phenomenon of culture, acting, therefore, as a kind of text, in one way or another correlating with its context, on the one hand, leaves its mark on the contextual semantic field, and, on the other hand, the other adapts itself to its context, experiencing its value-semantic impact; comprehension, interpretation and evaluation of this cultural phenomenon is always contextual, i.e. the emerging dialogical relations between the given text and the innovative context - as a result, there is an "increment of meaning" - first of all in the text itself, which acquires - in the process of interaction with its context - more and more means "interpretative shell". In this sense, the same cultural phenomenon in decomp. cultural history. epoch and even during relatively small histories. periods is not equal to itself, since in its content it constantly loses some meanings and semantics. shades and acquires other, more relevant, valuable or significant in some respect.
A special case is the deliberate modernization of the phenomena of the culture of the past or nat. adaptation of foreign cultural phenomena, achieved by appropriate modeling of epistemological. context - sharply modern or exclusively national-cultural - a new phenomenon of culture, highlighted by an unexpected context, is an allusion to the former (i.e., a special kind of interpretation, rethinking, and not its continuation and development), and its V. in cultural history . relation, thus, is meaningless (on this the postmodernist game is built with historically and culturally incompatible realities, which in their totality are fundamentally unverifiable). Similarly, in its effect, the intentional removal of a particular cultural phenomenon from its history. context (ignoring real cultural relations and connections, "reading range" and interests of the cultural figure under study, cultural and semantic sources and associations of the analyzed works, concepts and doctrines; attributing to the phenomenon of culture those meanings and meanings that are not genetically characteristic of it or are historically impossible "accusation" of a cultural figure of ignorance of the facts or ideas known to his later critics or interpreters, or of defending an undesirable, from the point of view of the interpreter, party-class, ideological or philosophical position on certain issues, which is actually a tendentious reinterpretation of cultural phenomena in an ideologically alien or contrasting context.In most cases, this was the V. of culture in Marxist culturology, which most consistently compared the phenomena of culture with the phenomena of social reality, dividing cultural figures into "progressive" and "reactionary", and the phenomena of culture into popular and "anti-people", revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, "necessary", from party positions, and "unnecessary" (in the light of the tasks of the revolution, socialist construction, communist ideals, topic of the day, etc.). V. phenomena of culture, carried out from the standpoint of history., Politico-ideol. or philosophy. superiority, as well as the "judgment" of one cultural era over another or criticism of one nat. cultures of other nats. culture (the same applies to various subcultures) are illegal and subjective, although they are quite understandable and widespread in the history of culture. We are talking about the collision of different, sometimes incompatible cultural codes and the imposition of mutually contradictory semantic structures related to heteronomous cultural systems. The V. of cultural phenomena is here illusory and, as a rule, ideologically predetermined. In other words, it is verified thus. not the cultural phenomenon itself, but only its interpretation (as a rule, implicitly containing an assessment, which confirms the socio-political, and ideological-worldview. engagement of the researcher). Strictly speaking, V. in cultural studies is possible only in phenomenological. and hermeneutics. sense, i.e. in the context of a given culture, given history. era, a given cultural style, type of worldview, morphological. accessories, etc. up to concret. cultural phenomena. The problem of cultural relativism that arises before culturologists (especially when conducting cross-cultural - comparative historical and typical - research) is in principle difficult to resolve. On the one hand, it is difficult to prove that a certain phenomenon or category of one culture (subculture) is perceived exactly in this way in another culture, that concepts and ideas are different. cultures are authentic and mutually translatable, that the sociocultural explanation of this phenomenon in one culture will be true in relation to another. On the other hand, the desire to understand another culture by the method of conditional "getting used" to it, in terms of "determining the situation" by the studied figures, by refusing to understand the "foreign" culture on the basis of their own categories and "one's own" cultural-historical. experience - is fraught with the fact that due to the "contextual indulgence" of the researcher, not a single phenomenon of another culture (type of behavior, belief, thinking, creativity, etc.) can be considered unnatural or irrational if it is considered within its own cultural context. At the same time, it is unlikely that a researcher of "another culture" could completely abandon the definition. stereotypes or discourses of "one's own culture", which actually excludes the possibility of an adequate understanding of other cultural experience and other cultural systems. Thus, V. is subject not so much to culture itself, analyzed and interpreted, systematized and generalized in cultural studies. theories and teachings, how many cultural studies. doctrines and concepts that comprehend and classify cultural phenomena, comparing them with each other and evaluating, explaining and predicting cultural history. development of mankind and its components. This is important in order to clearly distinguish in cultural the study of the meanings, meanings and evaluations imposed by the researcher on his material, and arising from his unbiased analysis; subjective tendentiousness and cognition. objectivity; desired and actual; organic and derivative.
Characteristic is the concept of K. R. Popper, who countered the idea of V. with the idea of falsification. In an effort to consistently and strictly distinguish between science and ideology (which is especially important in relation to the humanities and social sciences, including cultural studies), Popper argued that science, in order to prove its validity, should strive not to defend its provisions and principles, i.e. V. (ideology also successfully does this), but to their refutation: science can develop only by testing and refuting its own hypotheses (falsification), putting forward new hypotheses and their subsequent falsifying verification, etc. (which ideology is organically incapable of). In his polemic with Popper, T. Kuhn insisted that science depends primarily on assumptions, which in principle cannot be falsified, and the development of science is not determined systematically. testing hypotheses, as falsificationism sees it, but as a result of changing scientific (more broadly cultural) paradigms. If Popper emphasized in scientific research the generation of an innovative principle by denying old hypotheses that could not stand the test, then Kuhn emphasized the continuity and succession of cultural traditions in scientific development, only occasionally "exploded" by scientific revolutions - upheavals that open fundamentally new systems and principles of knowledge, thereby interrupting tradition and requiring renewal V. It is logical to present V. and the falsification of hypotheses as complementary, the principles of testing knowledge, differently, but equally contributing to its growth, deepening and internal. improvement in the context of culture.
Lit .: Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. M., 1977; Zabotin P.S. Overcoming delusions in scientific knowledge. M., 1979; Mulud N. Analysis and meaning. M., 1979; Markaryan E.S. Theory of culture and modern. science (Logico-methodological analysis). M., 1983; Pavilenis R.I. The problem of meaning. Modern logical-philosophical. language analysis. M., 1983; Science and culture. M., 1984; Polanyi M. Personal knowledge: On the way to postcritical. philosophy. M., 1985; Ryzhko V.A. Scientific concepts: socio-cultural, logical-gnoseol. and practical Aspects. K., 1985; Interpretation as historical-scientific and methodological. problem. Novosib., 1986; Culture, man and picture of the world. M., 1987; Scientific revolutions in the dynamics of culture. Minsk, 1987; Gadamer H.-G. Truth and Method: Fundamentals of Philosophy. hermeneutics. M., 1988; Parakhonsky B.A. The language of culture and the genesis of knowledge. K., 1988; Geroimenko V.A. Personal knowledge and scientific creativity. Minsk, 1989; Bibler B.C. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or Poetics of Culture. M., 1991; Bibler B.C. From science to the logic of culture: Two philosophies. introduction to the 21st century. M., 1991; 0nzhe. On the verge of the logic of culture. M., 1997; Petrov M.K. Language, sign, culture. M., 1991; He is. Self-consciousness and scientific creativity. Rostov-on-Don, 1992; He is. Historical and philosophical research. M., 1996; Stepin B.C. Philos. anthropology and philosophy of science. M., 1992; Lem S. Ethics of Technology and Technology of Ethics. culture model. Permian; Abakan; M., 1993; Sorina GV Logical and cultural dominant: Essays on the theory and history of psychologism and antipsychologism in culture. M., 1993; Manheim K. Diagnosis of our time. M., 1994; Orlova E.A. Introduction to social and cultural anthropology. M., 1994; Deleuze J. Logic of meaning. M., 1995; Ideal, utopia and critical. reflection. M., 1996; Communications in culture. Petrozavodsk, 1996; Cultural anthropology. SPb., 1996; Kagan M.S. Philosophy of culture. SPb., 1996; Mamardashvili M.K. Arrow of knowledge: A sketch of natural history. epistemology. M., 1996; Pyatigorsky A.M. Selected works. M., 1996; Ricker P. Hermeneutics and psychoanalysis. Religion and faith. M., 1996; Second Navigation: Philosophy. Culturology. Lit.-doing: Almanac. X., 1997; Zlobin N. Cultural meanings of science. M., 1997; Kagan M.S. Philos. value theory. SPb., 1997; Mamardashvili M.K., Pyatigorsky A.M. Symbol and consciousness: Metaphysical. reasoning about consciousness, symbolism and language. M., 1997; Mikhailov A.V. Languages of culture. M., 1997; Turovsky M.B. Philos. foundations of cultural studies. M., 1997; Popper K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. L., 1959; Popper K.R. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. N.Y.; L., 1962; Adorno T.W. Prisms: Cultural Criticism and Society. L., 1967; McHugh P. Defining the Situation: The Organization of Meaning in Social Interaction. Indian., 1968; Vallier I. (ed.) Comparative Methods in Sociology. Berk., 1971; Douglas M. Cultural Bias. L., 1978; Smith A.D. national identity. L.; N.Y., 1991.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
The terms "verification" and "validation" are very often used in the technical literature and are associated with the analysis of the quality of any software. Various interpretations of these concepts can be found in the scientific literature. So, let's try to understand this issue.
The most correct, from our point of view, is the following definition. Validation and verification are activities that are aimed at conducting quality control in order to detect errors in it at an early stage. It would seem that they have a common goal. But still, these species have differences in the sources of checked properties, restrictions and rules, non-observance of which can be considered an error.
Verification is a verification of the compliance of the software with the requirements specification, architecture or The “duties” of this term include the comparison of the calculation procedure with the process of their development, rules and standards.
Data verification can be performed to establish the compliance of the program operation with established norms, requirements, design decisions and user documentation. At the same time, those documents are subject to mandatory preliminary verification, with which a comparison is made for compliance with their standards and regulations established in the country where the software is operated. It is necessary to take into account the observance of all sequences of operations performed.
If an error or defect is found in the operation of the program, or if a contradiction is found between the above documents and the current functioning of the program, the decision to select a document for correction should be a separate task.
In contrast to verification, validation is responsible for verifying that software products being developed or maintained meet the needs or needs of customers or users. These needs are often not recorded in any documentation. That is why validation is less formalized than verification. This is a process in which a representative of the customer, user, and may also be present an analyst or expert in In other words, those who can express the specific needs and real needs of stakeholders.
Verification is the answer to the question "Is the software done right?" and validation is the answer to the question "Is the software done right?".
When looking for an answer to the questions posed, it can be found that validation (or certification) in terms of content has a slightly wider meaning than verification (verification). However, verification is closely related to ensuring software product quality control.
For example, the verification of a computer program involves a process in which the goal is to ensure that the requirements of the data obtained in a particular product life cycle meet those obtained in the previous stage.
If we talk about the verification of the model, then here we will talk about checking the correctness of the display of this computational model of the necessary conceptual or
When verifying the system code, the source encoding is analyzed and its compliance with the documentary description is checked.
The verification process may include operations containing alternative calculations. The technical and scientific documentation of the new project is compared with the corresponding documentation of the existing project, mandatory testing, approbation of the new software product and demonstration of the results.
