Use of the terms “estimate” and “definition” in dependability-related standards

Abstract

The paper aims to improve the terminology used in dependability-related state standards. Examples are given of the use of the terms “estimate” and “definition” in the “Risk management” and “Dependability in technics” series of state standards. The meanings of those terms were clarified based on the existing regulatory documents. Requirements for the integrity of the used terms were defined. Wordings were proposed for the term definitions that feature the words “estimate” and “definition”. Aim. To examine and discuss the common, but not sufficiently substantiated terms “estimate” and “definition” used in state standards, i.e., to consider the legitimacy of their application as part of the above series of state standards. Proposals as to the improvement of such terms’ application were also set forth. Methods. Examples are given of the use of the terms “estimate” and “definition” in state standards. Based on the existing state standards, the actual meanings of the considered terms were clarified: “definition” refers to the way a term is defined, while “estimate” and “estimation” are closely associated with mathematical statistics. The requirements for the integrity of the used terminology are defined and come down to it being unambiguous, consistent within itself and across the relevant state standards. In this context, the shortcomings of the examined terms are shown that are associated with the above requirements, i.e., the meaning, content, essence and key features of such terms are clearly defined. Any comments or references to other regulatory documents are missing as well. Results. In most standards, in the “Terms and definitions” section, the concept of “definition” is used correctly, i.e., terms are defined. However, in other cases, the concept of “definition” is used in a different sense, as nothing is actually being defined. Based on the term integrity requirements and in light of the above shortcomings, proposed replacements for the terms in question were defined. In most cases, instead of the terms “estimate” and “definition”, it is proposed to use the terms “calculation” and “computation”, as well as their cognates, “calculate”, “compute”. It should be noted that along the state standards, theseterms are used in technical documentation, science papers, monographs and textbooks. Conclusions. The use of the examined terms in some standards lacks integrity. The requirements of the standardization recommendations are not observed, the terms are not unambiguous and consistent with other standards. Based on these requirements, the paper proposes improved ways of using the terms “estimate” and “definition”. The suggested terms should be considered as a tentative proposal. Final definitions and/or replacements of these terms are to be developed through extensive discussion and compromise.