Skip Navigation

The Computer Journal 1989 32(3):202-211; doi:10.1093/comjnl/32.3.202
© 1989 by British Computer Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Godwin, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Salt, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

A Comparison of JSD and DFD as Descriptive Tools

A. N. Godwin *, M. B. Gore * and D. W. Salt *

IMMS Group Coventry Polytechnic, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

There is often a need to provide an assessment of a description method to be used in a phase of systems analysis. The authors are developing a framework for assessment which is applicable to such tools. In this paper we demonstrate how the framework can be used in a general comparison of the two description methods: Jackson Systems Design and Gane and Sarson's version of Data Flow Diagrams. For completeness we provide an introductory description of the assessment technique and give examples of the use of JSD and DFD. It is claimed that the assessments that are formally based on the examples have validity beyond the narrow base of the comparison. The assessment technique assigns DFD and JSD profiles which are of use in making decisions on suitability of application.

Received July 1987. revised February 1988.

* IMMS Group Coventry Polytechnic, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.