[Skip Navigation] [Text Version] [Remove Frame] [Home] newbib Fri Nov 6 11:56:23 PST 2009
Opening the PDF files on this page may require you to download Adobe Reader or an equivalent viewer (GhostScript).

Opening Microsoft files (winzip, word, excel, powerpoint) on this page may require you to download a special viewer. Or you can download and save the files and use your preferred office applications to view and edit them.

Contents


    Bibliography

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. A Bibliography of software development
    3. 1984..2005 [ newbib.html ]
    4. =BIBLIOGRAPHY
    5. Goal:= To document most useful theories and the most reliable information about current and past practice.
    6. Example: What really happened when IPT was tried at the New York Times? [McNurlin77]
    7. Example: for how long have people been writing about replacing the Software Development Live Cycle? [Gladden82]

    Aaen03

    1. Ivan Aaen
    2. Software Process Improvement: Blueprints versus Recipes
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n5(Sep/Oct 2003)pp86-93
    4. =ADVOCATES AGILE IMPROVEMENT SPI PEOPLE vs PROCEDURE
    5. Lists the risks of having a separate SPI team working out a blueprint/structure/standards.
    6. Promotes the facilitation of improvisation plus reflection within existing teams

    AalstWeijtersMaruster04

    1. Wil van der Aalst & Ton Weijters & Laura Maruster
    2. Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs
    3. IEEE Trans Knowledge and Data Engineering V16n9(Nov 2004)pp1128-1142 CR 0512-1362
    4. =THEORY =APPLIED 2 SYSTEM nonsequential PETRI SWF-net workflow-net α-algorithm TOOLS EMiT Little Thumb WORKFLOW
    5. Start with logs of real work-flows.
    6. Gives α-algorithm to convert logs into nets. Work-nets are specialized petri P/T nets with certain structures forbidden.
    7. Tested on system for patients in hospital and had to ignore rare events/activi ties.
    8. Tested on 130,136 cases of fine collection for a justice system.

    AalstWeske05

    1. Wil M van der Aalst & Mathias Weske
    2. Case Handling: A new paradigm for business process support
    3. Data & Knowledge Engineering V53n2(May 2005)pp129-162 CR 0605-0527
    4. =UNREAD =IDEA WORKFLOW DESIGN UML METAMODEL [click here [socket symbol] if you can fill this hole]

    AbadiLamport90

    1. Martin Abadi & Leslie Lamport
    2. Composing Specifications
    3. Digital Sys Res Center(Oct 10 1990) CR9405-0309 F.3.1 [AbadiLamport93]
    4. =MATHEMATICAL SPECIFICATION LOGIC
    5. Has a ref to Cliff Jones's Oxford PhD Thesis in the early 80s! p9: "Composition is conjunction" cf Zave & Jackson.

    AbadiLamport92

    1. Martin Abadi & Leslie Lamport
    2. An Old-fashioned Recipe for Real Time
    3. Digital Sys Res Center TR#91(Oct 12 1992) [AbadiLamport94]
    4. =MATHEMATICAL TIMING LOGIC

    AbadiLamport93

    1. Martin Abadi & Leslie Lamport
    2. Composing Specifications
    3. ACM TOPLAS V15n1(Jan 1993)pp73-132
    4. =MATHEMATICAL SPECIFICATION LOGIC
    5. Reviewed CR9405-0309 F.3.1
    6. similar to AbadiLamport90 Based on Lamport91

    AbadiLamport94

    1. Martin Abadi & Leslie Lamport
    2. An Old-fashioned recipe for Real Time
    3. ACM TOPLAS V16n5(Sep 1994)pp1543-1571 See [AbadiLamport92]
    4. =MATHEMATICAL TIMING LOGIC
    5. Review CR9507-0506 F.3.1: uses TLA as a base
    6. can reason separately about function and timing(by var now:real). Two problems: now can get stuck (Zeno-ness) or two requirements can conflict. ->> detect and correct spec to avoid. (not in A&L 1992?)

    AbadiLamport95

    1. Martin Abadi & Leslie Lamport
    2. Conjoining Specifications
    3. ACM Ttrans Prog Lang Sys V17n3(May 1995)pp507-535 CR9605-0369 CR9608-0610(...cumbersome notation....) F.3.1
    4. =MATHEMATICAL SPECIFICATION LOGIC TLA
    5. conjunction implies parallel combination

    Abbotetal93

    1. Ben Abbott & Ted Bapty & Csaba Biegl & Gabor Karsai & Janos Sztipanovits
    2. Model Based Software Synthesis
    3. IEEE Software Magazine (May 1993) pp42-52
    4. =ADVERT METHOD

    Abbott83

    1. ?? Abbott
    2. Program Design by Informal English Descriptions
    3. Commun ACM Vol 26 No 11(Nov 1983)pp882-894
    4. =IDEA ADTs REALITY THEORY Informal algorithm->model->code
    5. Start with an informal algorithm and extract and object-oriented model.
    6. Leads to Grady Booch's methods but is later critiscized because getting the algorithm is difficult. [Booch83] [Booch86]

    Abdel-Hamid96

    1. Tarek K Abdel-Hamid
    2. The Slippery Path to Productivity Improvement
    3. IEEE Software Magazine VSE13N4(Jul 1996)pp43-54
    4. =SIMULATION TOOLS PEOPLE
    5. simulation rediscovers Brookes's Law. Also raw historical data can trigger a brookes crisis. Work reffered to in [Brooks95]

    Aberdour07

    1. Mark Aberdour
    2. Achieving Quality in Open Source Software
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V24n1(Jan/Feb 2007)pp58-64
    4. =SURVEY OSS RESEARCH OPEN SOURCE TECHNICAL QUALITY PEOPLE ONION
    5. Table 1 compares open and closed source processes.
    6. Page 62: 3 open source maturity models.
    7. Good software engineering complements good people structure.

    Abiteboul00

    1. Serge Abiteboul & Peter Buneman & Dan Suciu
    2. Data on the Web: from relations to semistructured data and XML
    3. Morgan Kaufman SF CA 2000 ISBN 1-55860-622-X CR 0105-0161 QA76.9.D3 A258
    4. =MONOGRAPH DATA NET/WWW LOGIC XML XSL-QL DTD ACeDB OEM Lore Strudel

    AbowdDix93

    1. Gregory D Abowd & Alan J Dix
    2. Integrating status and event phenomena in formal specifictions of interactive systems
    3. SIGSOFT'94 Proc 2nd ACM SIGSOFT Symp on Foundations of Software Engineering & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V19n5(Dec 1994)pp44-52. See [ZaveJackson94]
    4. =MATHEMATICAL HCI/USER SPECIFICATION
        Signature+Events+formulae+ interstitial behavior.

        Nothing that Ross Ashby and JSD didn't know about already

        looks a little like hypertalk, but notation not of the essence.


    Abowdetal93

    1. Gregory D Abowd & Robert Allen & David Garlan
    2. Using Style to Understand Descriptions of Software Architecture
    3. In [Notkin93] pp9-20
    4. =THEORY MATHEMATICAL ARCHITECTURE
    5. Z Pipe-filter and Event System styles
    6. partial functions Syntax<>->Semantics to describe constraints on syntax
        pipe-filter Abstract syntax{ports, descriptions, roles, connections, components, connectors, attachments}

        -ve: some small Z errors -ve: Includes filter's state as part of model of filter. amow: should use IO relations

        Event-System style: invoked, announced, methods, events, states, start,... NOT classes

        Analysis, special cases,....


    Abowdetal95

    1. Gregory D Abowd & Robert Allen & David Garlan
    2. Formalizing Style to Understand Descriptions of Software Architecture
    3. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol V4n4(Oct 1995)pp319-365
    4. =THEORY MATHEMATICAL ARCHITECTURE
    5. expanded version of 1994 SIGSOFT paper (or is it : AbowdAllenGarlan93?)

    AbramowitzStegun6465

    1. (National Bureau of Standards)
    2. Handbook of Mathematical Functions
    3. hard back edition 1964 & Dover paper back edition NY NY 1965
    4. =HANDBOOK MATH FUNCTIONS TABLES FORMULAE

    Abramson73

    1. ?? Abramson
    2. Theory & Practice of a Bottom-up Syntax Directed Translator
    3. NY Ac Press 1973
    4. =HOWTO COMPILER DDD REALITY SYSTEM

    AbramsonDahl89

    1. Harvey Abramson & Veronica Dahl
    2. Logic Grammars
    3. Springer Verlag 1989
    4. =HOWTO GRAMMAR DDD PROLOG REALITY

    Abrial89

    1. J Abrial
    2. A Formal Approach to Large Software Construction
    3. In Mathematics of Program construction J L A Van de Snepscheut(ed) Springer NY NY 1989 pp 1-20. See [LafontaneLedruSchobbens91]
    4. =ADVERT LOGIC TOOL Z VDM B
    5. B theorem prover LOGIC TOOL used by Z and VDM groups

    Abrial09

    1. Jean-Raymond Abrial
    2. Faultless Systems: Yes we can
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V42n9(Sep 2009)pp30-36
    4. =ADVERT FORMAL SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS B Event-B CORRECTNESS MODEL PROOF SIMULATION REFINEMENT PATTERNS MATHEMATICS TOOL Rodin
    5. assumes waterfall is necessary.
    6. process=requirements; model; code.
    7. requirements are a mixture of informal explanations and form definitions and proofs etc.
    8. Use coupled discrete state transition systems. And animation. Prove invariants.
    9. Need tools to prove thousands of changing propositions.
    10. Validate the problem as a system in an environment not just the software.
    11. Problem with not enough discrete mathematics in education.
    12. Problem with technology transfer.
    13. Link [ http://www.event-b.org ]

    AbrilPlant07

    1. Patricia S Abril & Robert Plant
    2. The patent holder's dilemma: buy, sell, or troll?
    3. Commun ACM V50n1(Jan 2007)pp37-44
    4. =SURVEY PATENTS LEGAL INTELECTUAL PROPERTY
    5. Complex business models involving trading, holding, and combining software patents -- and they don't all work.

    Abualsamid01

    1. Ahmad Abualsamid
    2. PHP & Hosted Applications
    3. Dr. Dobbs #320(Jan 2001)pp56+58+60-63
    4. =ADVERT WWW/NET SERVER SCRIPTING LANGUAGE EXAMPLE
    5. PHP has syntax like UNIX shell.

    Aceto92

    1. Luca Aceto
    2. Action Refinements in Process Algebras
    3. Cambridge University press 1992 ISBN 0-521-43111-5
    4. =THEORY NONSEQUENTIAL MATHEMATICAL ALGEBRA
    5. CR9312-0920(non-sequential for experts; distinguished thesis; poor printing "tractable notion of semantic equivalence of process algebras that do not equate parallelism with sequential nondeterminism and support operators for refining actions.")

    Ackerman03

    1. Jody Ackerman
    2. Uniting with only a few random links
    3. Newswise [ ?id=RANDOM.RPI ]
    4. =ARTICLE NONSEQUENTIAL NET PARALLEL COMPUTATION
    5. Use a small world network to keep processes synchronized with minimal overhead.
    6. Regular communication with a few neighbors + a few connections with random distant processes.
    7. Research by Korniss at Rensslaer (RPI)

    AcunaJuristo04

    1. Silvia T Acuna & Natalia Juristo
    2. Assigning people to roles in software projects Software - Practice & Experience V34n7(Jun 2004)pp675-696 CR Nov2004
    3. =EXPERIMENT PEOPLE PROCESS
    4. Document person-role-capabilities relationship before seeking optimal assignments in a project.
    5. Worked better than a random assignment!
    6. Leads to [AcunaJuristo06]

    AcunaJuristo05

    1. S Acuna S & N Juristo (Eds)
    2. Software process modeling
    3. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, 2005. (the kluwer international series in software engineering) CR 0607-0694
    4. =SURVEY =PAPERS PROCESS MODELLING MATHEMATICS PEOPLE UML MANAGEMENT JAD IMPROVEMENT CMM PSPS STIN SPEM
    5. Reccommends focussing process research on the people in the process and the needs of the organization. [AcunaJuristo04] [AcunaJuristo06]

    AcunaJuristoMoreno06

    1. Silvia T Acuna & Natalia Juristo & Ana M Moreno
    2. Emphasizing Human Capabilities in Software development
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V23n2(Mar/Apr 2006)pp94-101
    4. =EXPERIMENT PEOPLE Cattell 16PF ROLLS CF
    5. Matching personality to role seems associated with fewer defects and higher productivity. [AcunaJuristo04].

    ACM86

    1. Editted by Robert L Ashenhurst & Susan Graham
    2. ACM Turing Award Lectures: The First Twenty Years 1966-1985
    3. ACM Press 1987 ( Addison-Wesley)
    4. =HISTORY SURVEY PRIZE winners

    ACMCALGO

    1. Various
    2. The ACM Collected Algorithms
    3. Association for Computing Machinery 1960-
    4. =HANDBOOK TECHNICAL

    AdamicHuberman01

    1. Lada A Adamic & Bernardo A Huberman
    2. The Web's Hidden Order
    3. Commun ACM V44n9(Sep 2001)pp55-59
    4. =ANALYSIS NET/WEB WWW COMPLEXITY SMALL-WORLD POWER-LAW DYNAMIC MODEL ECONOMICS
    5. power_law(β)::= Net{ for some constant c, frequency = c /(size**β). }.
    6. WWW shows exponential growth.
    7. number of pages per site, number of users, number of outlinks, and number of inlinks all have close to a 1/n**2 distribution.
    8. This can be accounted for by two random growth models. stochastic rate of growth proportional to size. Either starting at different times, or with different growth rates.
    9. Usage is an 80-20 phenomenon.
    10. Implication: any site gets a few visitors each day, few get large numbers...
    11. winner take all markets.
    12. small worlds effect because some sites have lots of links. diameter between sites is about 4 clicks. between pages about18 clicks.

    Adams91

    1. Illustrated by Scott Adams
    2. Build a better life by stealing office supplies: Dogbert's big book of business
    3. Andrews & McMeel, Kansas City, Missouri, 1991, ISBN 0-8362-1757-8
    4. =JOKE PEOPLE MANAGEMENT

    Adams97

    1. Scott Adams
    2. Seven Years of Highly Defective People
    3. Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1997, Kansas City, Missouri, ISBN 0-8362-3668-8
    4. =JOKE PEOPLE cartoons on engineering, life, and mis-management

    Adams96

    1. Tom Adams
    2. Total Variance Approach to Software Reliability Estimation
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-22n9(Sep 1996)pp687-688
    4. =MATHEMATICS QUALITY TEST RELIABILITY
    5. Operational Profiles do not admit that they are uncertain predictions and so reliability is underestimated

    AdamsE84

    1. E Adams
    2. Optimizing preventive service of software products
    3. IBM Research J., V28n1(?? 1984)pp2-14
    4. =EMPIRICAL QUALITY vs RELIABILITY
    5. Quoted by [FentonOhlsson00]

    AdamsJ06

    1. Joel C Adams
    2. OOP and the Janus Principle
    3. ITICSE ACM SIGCSE Bulletin V38n1(Mar 2006)pp359-363
    4. =DEMO TEACHING PEDAGOGY JANUS OBJECT-ORIENTED MODULES MVC DAYTIME JAVA CSCI375
    5. Janus::=following
        Design and write OO applications so that they support multiple, reusable user interfaces with minimal redundant code.

    6. The old Parnas rule:"Separate concerns". [Parnas72b]
    7. Presents a modified MVC with View+Controller in one class plus separate Model class.
    8. Nice example: Program to get and display current time from servers with multiple user interfaces: command line & menu-driven & GUI: [ http://www.calvin.edu/~adams/software/janus/ ]

    AdcockEtAl07

    1. Bruce Adcock & Paolo Bucci & Wayne D Heym & Joseph E Hollingsworth & Timothy Long
    2. Which Pointer Errors do Students Make?
    3. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin V39n1(Mar 2007) & proc SIGCSE'07 pp9-13
    4. =ADVERT TOOL C++ Java PEDAGOGY
    5. Proposes finite state models for pointers in C++ and in Java.
    6. Java_pointer_model::=following
      Table
      Old\NewAliveNullOut of scope
      Alive* newNULL}
      NullnewNULL *X}
      Out of scope00declare

      (Close Table)
      (X = unsafe)
    7. C++Pointer_model::=following
      Table
      Old\NewAliveNullOut of scopeDead
      Alive* new ZNULL Z} Zdelete ε
      NullnewNULL *X delete}0
      Out of scope000declare
      DeadnewNULL}* X delete X

      (Close Table)
      (Z=dangerous, X=unsafe, ε=spontaneous)

    Adhikari95a

    1. Richard Adhikari
    2. BringingMethodology to Client/Server Madness
    3. Software Magazine (Mar 1995)pp35-49
    4. =SURVEY METHODS WEB/NET
    5. Fig p40: 13 different methods in use/planned to be used

    Adhikari95b

    1. Richard Adhikara
    2. Code Recycling saves resources
    3. Software magazine (July 1995)pp31-37
    4. =EXPERIENCE TECHNICAL REUSE
    5. 6 experiences of technical (code) reuse technology paying off. Across several platforms & industries: mainly large projects. Some object-oriented but some were not. Example of a simulation have code componentes that were later reused for non-simulation.

    Adler88

    1. Mike Adler
    2. An Algebra for DFD Process decomposition
    3. IEEE trans on Soft Eng vSE-14n2(Feb 1988)pp169-183
    4. =MATH ALGEBRA IO MATRICES DESIGN DFD TECHNICAL

    AdlerR95

    1. Richard M Adler<radler@tiac.net>
    2. Emerging Standards for Component Software
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V28n3(Mar 1995)pp68-76
    4. =STANDARDS CORBA OMG+ OLE COM+OpenDoc+DCE/RPC+SOM+...

    Adolf96

    1. W Stephen Adolph
    2. Cash Cow in the Tar Pit: Reengineering a Legacy system
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V13N3(May 1996)pp41-47
    4. =EXPERIENCE REENGINEERING RISK SYSTEM 20 year old assembly language for obsolete computers
    5. need to provide tools to aid the reading of the legacy code and capturing key algorithms
    6. 2 weeks training in Hatley/Pirbhai SAD and PC CASE lead to designs that had to be thrown away
    7. key objective: no feature of legacy system to be "improved" unless it reduced the cost of implementing the new system. domain experts must train sosftwrae specialists
    8. need to manage CASE tools.

    Adolph99

    1. Steve Adolph =?= W Stephen Adolph
    2. Whatever Happened to Reuse?
    3. Software Development Magazine V7n11(Nov 1999)pp40-43
    4. =ESSAY REUSE vs salvage COST ECONOMICS short-term needs vs long term value

    Adolph00

    1. Steve Adolph
    2. four-wheel drive, garbage trucks and objects
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n6(Jun 2000)pp52-55
    4. =ESSAY OBJECT-ORIENTED DESIGN MODULE MAINTENANCE REFACTORING
    5. OO + expediency can encourage loss of cohesion and high coupling: blobs, mudballs, or garbage barges
    6. example - add salaried employee to employee

    Adolf00b

    1. Steve Adolph
    2. Getting Out of the Software Mud Pit
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n12(Dec 2000)pp41-44
    4. =HOWTO =HISTORY REFACTOR MAINTENANCE TECHNICAL QUALITY
    5. Big balls of mud are messy but systematic refactoring can help.
    6. refactor::=apply behavior-preserving transformations that improve code quality.
    7. Refers to William Opdyke's 1992 Doctoral thesis "Refactoring Object-oriented Frameworks" U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    8. Example: Fixing Feature Envy. A piece of code in method in class A refers to several class B methods only. Therefore Replace-Code-Segment-With-Function-Call AKA Extract Method(110) an then Move-Member-Function AKA Move Method(142)

    AgarwalREtal00

    1. Ritu Agarwal & Prabuddha De & Atish P Singh & Mohan Tanniru
    2. On the Usability of OO Representations
    3. Commun ACM V43n10(Oct 2000)pp83-89
    4. =EXPERIMENT FUNCTIONAL vs DATABASED MODELS of new SYSTEM POLL
    5. Easiest to match type of model to the type of task.

    AgarwalLago95

    1. Rakesh Agarwal &Patricia Lago
    2. PATHOS - A Paradigmatic Approach To High-level Object-oriented Software Development
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V20n2(Apr 1995)pp36-41
    4. =ADVERT METHOD OBJECT-ORIENTED
      1. confused
      2. technical activities: find classes, find methods and behavior, define classes and methods
      3. Technical control activities: logical design, detailed design
      4. ...Early consideration of reuse and quality in design

    AgarwalRahaGhosh00

    1. Rakesh Agarwal & Arup Ratan & Raha Bhaskar Ghosh
    2. Our experience and learning in ERP implementation
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering notes V25n2(Mar 2000)pp31-34
    4. =EXPERIENCE MRP-II
    5. gap_analysis:=comparing existing software behavior with the client budiness needs.
    6. need tounderstand client's business
    7. use informal discussion to gather data.

    AgarwalSinha03

    1. Ritu Agarwal & Atish P. Sinha (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee )
    2. Object-oriented modeling with UML: a study of developers' perceptions
    3. Communications of the ACM V46n9 (Sep 2003)pp 248-256 Virtual extension Retrieved Sep 3rd 2003 from [ 903893.903944 ]
    4. =EXPERIMENT NOVICES UML GRAPHICS use case state charts
    5. p252: "both use case diagrams and state diagrams were perceived as being easier to use than class and interaction diagrams."
    6. p253: "developers with more experience in OO analysis and design techniques perceived class diagrams and interaction diagrams as being easier to use than those with less experience."
    7. p253: "greater experience in process-oriented analysis and design techniques resulted in more positive perceptions of the usability of UML diagrams, overall."
    8. p253-4: use case document real world problems BUT how much detail?, Class diagrams notations are liked but defining operations is difficult. State diagrams are simple and easy but how to identify states?, Interaction diagrams provoke strong +ve and -ve comments. Use cases are the best.

    Agha90

    1. Gul Agha
    2. Concurrent Object-oriented Programming
    3. Commun ACM V33n9(Sep 1990)pp125-141
    4. =DEMO GRAPHIC OBJECT_ORIENTED NONSEQUENTIAL DESIGN
    5. Actor-Event diagrams History dependent

    Aghaetal89

    1. Gul Aghar & Peter Wegner & Akinori Yonezawa(Ed)
    2. Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Object-Based Concurrent Programming
    3. SIGPLAN Notes V24n4(Apr 1989)
    4. =PROCEEDINGS DYNAMICS OBJECT-ORIENTED COROUTINES

    Aghaetal93

    1. Gul Agha & Peter Wegner & Akinori Yonezawa(Ed)
    2. Research Directions in Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming
    3. MIT Press Cambridge MA 1993 ISBN 0-262-01139-5 CR9502-0058
    4. =PROCEEDINGS DYNAMICS OBJECT-ORIENTED COROUTINES

    Agosta95

    1. Louis Agosta
    2. Comparative Review(CR9502-0058)
    3. Computing Reviews V36n2(Feb 1995)pp88-93
    4. =HISTORY OBJECT-ORIENTED METHODS Three waves of OO methods:

    Agre95

    1. Philip A Agre
    2. My Top 10 Email Hassles
    3. Commun ACM V38n7(Jul 1995)pp122
    4. =ARTICLES RISKS EMAIL

    AgrestiEvanco92

    1. William W Agresti & William M Avanco
    2. Projecting Software Defects From Analysing Ada Designs
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-18n11(Nov 1992) pp988-997
    4. =EXPERIMENT METRIC
    5. Evidence that "with" coupling is correlated with defect density.

    AhoUllman7273

    1. Aho & Ullman
    2. The Theory of Parsing Translating & Compiling
    3. 2 Vols Prentice Hall International 1972 & 1973
    4. =TEXTBOOK =REFERENCE SURVEY DDD TECHNICAL

    AhujaCarrieroGelernter86

    1. Sudhir Ahuja & Nicholas Carriero & David Gelernter
    2. Lynda and Friends
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V19n8(Aug 1986)pp26-34
    4. =ADVERT Lynda NONSEQUENTIAL

    AielloEtAl07

    1. Marco Aiello & Ian E Pratt-Hartman & Johan F van Bentham (Eds)
    2. Handbook of spatial Logics
    3. Springer Verlag NY Secaucus NJ 207 ISBN 1402055862 CR 0811-1045
    4. =UNREAD =REFERENCE FORMAL MODAL LOGIC SPACE

    AikenMuntzRichards94

    1. Peter Aiken & Alice Muntz & Russ Richards
    2. DoD Legacy Systems: Reverse Engineering Data Requirements
    3. Comm ACM V37n5(May 1994)pp26-41
    4. =EXPERIENCE REVERSE ENGINEERING DATA
        1.4 billion LOCs at 1.7K locations in thousands of different systems.

        1986..87: Logical Data base Design

        1992: First technologically independent logical data model

      1. LDM has 468 entities and 1994 data elements

        1993: LDM has 362 entities and 1318 data elements


    AikenAllenParkerMattia07

    1. Peter Aiken & M David Allen & Burt Parker & Angela Mattia
    2. Measuring Data Managment Practice Maturity: A Community's Self-Assessment
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V40n4(Apr 2007)pp42-50
    4. =MODEL +POLL DATA PROCESS MATURITY IMPROVEMENT CMMI
    5. Proposes a CMMI-like measure of the maturity of data managment.
    6. 6 process areas: data program coordination, organizational data integration, data stewardship, data development, data support operations, and data asset use.
    7. The usual 5 levels: 1=initial, 2=repeatable, 3=defined, 4=managed, 5=optimizing.
    8. Questionaire with 20+ questions used intelephone interviews 2000-2005 with 107 companies.
    9. Results: most process areas are at the repeatable level.

    AichernigKainhofer04

    1. Bernhard K. Aichernig & Reinhold Kainhofer Comments: Presented at LfM2000, published in the proceedings In C.Michael Holloway, editor, Lfm2000, Fifth NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop, Williamsburg, Virginia, June 2000, number CP-2000-210100, pages 35-46. NA SA, June 2000
    2. =DEMO VALIDATION VDM-SL Mathematica Hybrid SAFER graphic animation
    3. Computer algebra systems can express VDM specifications and extend them to handle continuous(analog) components and behavior.

    AissiMaluSrinivasan02

    1. Selim Aissi & Pallavi Malu & Krishnamerthy Srinivasan
    2. E-Business Process Modeling:The Next Big step
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V35n5(May 2002)pp55-62
    4. =DEMO WEB/NET STANDARD WEB SERVICES XML
    5. PCF::="Process Coordination Framework", groups standards for e-business.
    6. PCF = security & ( service description and transaction binding end point description, public collaborative, private process; contracts and agreements).
    7. WSDL::="Web service description Language". [ wsdl ] provides information needed to use a service over the web.
    8. WSCL::="web services Conversation Language", [ http://www.w3.org/TR/wscl10/ ] defines conversations between service providers.
    9. ebXML::= See http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebBPSS.doc, UN and OASIS choreographs collaborations/transactions.
    10. CPP::= See http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebCPP.doc, Collaboration Protocol Profile.
    11. WSFL::= See http:://www4.ibm.com/software/solutions/webservices/pdf/WSFL.pdf, Web services Flow Language.
    12. XLANG::http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/xlang-c/default.htm, describes executable internal business processes.
    13. BPML::= See http://ww.bpmi.org/bpml.esp, describes internal business processes using transactional finite state machines.

    Akera07

    1. Atsushi Akera
    2. Edmund Berkeley and the Origins of ACM
    3. Commun ACM V50n5(May 2007)pp31-35
    4. =HISTORY 1940s ANALYSIS Study Contract
    5. Need to sell managment on the use of computers to do paper-work. "Methods Analysis".

    AlagarVenkatesan01

    1. Sridhar Alagar & Subbarayan Venkatesan
    2. Techniques to Tackle state explosion in a Global Predicate Detection
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V27n8(Aug 2001)pp704-714
    4. =THEORY LOGIC MODEL CHECKING

    AlanenPorres03

    1. Marcus Alanen & Ivan Porres
    2. Difference and Union of Models
    3. LNCS 2863 <<UML>> 2003 -- The Unified Modeling Language, Oct 2003, pp2-17
    4. =ALGORITHMS on MODEL VERSIONS UML MOF CMS
    5. If + is merge and - is difference then union of M1 and M2 based on M0 is M0+(M1-M0)+(M2-M0)

    Alavi86

    1. Maryam Alavi
    2. An Assessment of the Prototyping Approach to Information Systems Development
    3. Comm ACM V27n6(Jun 1986)pp556-563
    4. =EXPERIMENT PROTOTYPING REQUIREMENTS TOOLS
    5. concludes PROTOTYPING needs expertise support TOOLS and control but handles unclear and ambiguous REQUIREMENTS

    AlaviWetherbe91

    1. Maryam Alavi & James C Wetherbe
    2. Mixing Prototyping and Data Modeling for Information-System Design
    3. IEEE Software V8n3 (May 1991)p86-91.
    4. =ADVERT DATA PROTOTYPING

    Albizuri-Romero00

    1. Miren Begona Albizuri-Romero
    2. A retrospective view of CASE tools adoption
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering notes V25n2(Mar 2000)pp46-51
    4. =SURVEY pre1990 papers on STRUCTURED TOOLS

    AlencarCowanLucenaNova95

    1. Paulo S C Alencar & Donald D Cowan & Carlos J P Lucena & L C M Nova
    2. Formal specification of Reusable Interface Objects [SamadzadehZand95] pp88-96
    3. =DEMO ADV/ADO ADTs REUSE

    Albrecht04

    1. Conan C Albrecht
    2. How Clean is the future of SOAP
    3. Commun ACM V47n2(Feb 2004)pp66-68
    4. =THEORY SOAP TCP port 80 HTTP XML SECURITY vs CONVENIENCE
    5. SOAP::protocol="Simple Object Access Protocol", uses port 80 and HTTP to access objects + XML to encode operation and response.
    6. content type: text/xml-SOAP.
    7. Web server passes SOAP to routing engine and response back to caller.
    8. Currently not filtered. Security problems would change this.

    AlencarCowanLucena02

    1. Paulo S C Alencar & Donald D Cowan & Carlos J P Lucena
    2. A Logical Theory of Interfaces and Objects
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n6(Jun 2002)pp548-575
    4. =THEORY FORMAL LOGIC CATEGORY OBJECTS INTERFACES ADV ADO
    5. ADV::= "Abstract Design Views", interfaces.
    6. ADO::= "Abstract Design Objects".
    7. views_a::@(ADV, ADO).
    8. cf [AlencarCowanLucenaNova95]

    Alexander79

    1. Chistopher Alexander
    2. A Pattern Language
    3. Oxford U Press UK 1979
    4. =THEORY ARCHITECTURE Buildings, towns, regions.

    Alexander00

    1. Christopher Alexander
    2. The Nature of Order
    3. Book to be published in 2000
    4. =THEORY
    5. living structures generated smoothly by structure preserving unfoldings.
    6. normal 20C construction can not do this!

    Alexander92

    1. Tom Alexander
    2. How to Stop Fearing and Start Loving the Parallel Computer
    3. NSF MOSAIC V23n1(spring 1992)pp2-11
    4. =ARTICLE NONSEQUENTIAL TECHNICAL

    AlexanderCoplien99

    1. Christopher Alexander & James O Coplien(introduction)
    2. The Origins of Pattern Theory
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V16n5(Sep/Oct 1999)pp71-82
    4. =SPEECH OOPSLA'96 PATTERN THEORY
    5. patterns were generative( ala Chomski ), included a moral component, must lead to morphological coherence - a life promoting structure, a good environment
    6. 15 geometric properties underlying original patterns -> profundity
    7. 80..90%agreement for "Do you feel more whole/alive in the presence of this or that object?". Correlates with certain features/structures & profound functionallity!
    8. centers:=field-like structures recursively underlying all wholeness& more or less living things. See [Alexander00]
    9. Can/will software designers help people generate a life enhancing world?

    AlexanderH88

    1. Heather Alexander
    2. Comments on "Formal Specification of User Interfaces: A comparison and Evaluation of Four Axiomatic Approaches"
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng VSE-14n4(Apr 1988)pp438-439
    4. =DEMO need SQA on Z SPECIFICATIONs as well as code

    AlexanderH03

    1. Ian Alexander
    2. Misuse Cases: Use Cases with Hostile Intent
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n1(Jan/Feb 2003)pp58-66
    4. =IDEA NEGATIVE USECASES SCENARIO PURPOSES QUALITIES ANTI-STORIES
    5. Need to promote use-cases while stopping misuse cases.
    6. Normal relations: includes, has exception.
    7. New relations: misuse threatens use, use mitigates misuse.

    AlexanderKong01

    1. Perry Alexander & Cindy Kong
    2. Rosetta: Semantic Support for Model-Centered Systems-Level design
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V34n11(Nov 2001)pp64-70
    4. =DEMO TOOL ROSETTA MODEL SYSTEM PROPERTIES Category outputs Matlab TESTS
    5. Sidebar on p69 describes rivals: Adept, DEVS, Ptolemy, aspects, viewpoints, HyTech, SAL Kestrel, SpecWare
    6. Able to define, compose, project and explore the interactions of models of different types.
    7. facet := a special model within a domain of models. Facets are combined vertically(all true at one time) and horizontally )interacting components).
    8. domains: continuous and discrete times, finite and infinite state systems and tests, .... mechanical, hydraulic, power constraints

    AlexanderRobertson04

    1. Ian Alexander & Suzanne Robertson
    2. Understanding Project Sociology by Modeling Stakeholders.
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V21n1(Jan/Feb 2004)pp23-27
    4. =IDEA REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS STAKEHOLDERS Onion Model
    5. Fig 3 p26: Large matrix of stakeholder types vs classes of knowledge.
    6. Distinguishes 3 layers f stake holders centering on our product/the kit.
    7. Many systems the role of users is split between the normal operator close to the product, and the functional beneficiary.
    8. Onion.layers:=(our_product, our_system, containing_system, wider_environment).
    9. our_system:={ normal_operator, maintenance_operator, ...}.
    10. containing_system:={ functional_beneficiary, purchaser, interfacing_system,...}.
    11. wider_environment:={political_beneficiary, financial_beneficiary, negative_stakeholder, regulator, developer, ...}

    AlexanderRBiemanViega00

    1. Roger T Alexander & James M Bieman & John Viega
    2. Coping with Java Programming Stress
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n4(Apr 2000)pp30-38
    4. =DEMO JAVA TECHNICAL traps
    5. default/protected access easily broken
    6. subclasses can steal methods called in superclass constructors
    7. containers+no templates means ineffective type checking
    8. extend only for subclassin/is-a
    9. finalizers wai for garbage collection and may never happen
    10. no const methods or assertions so document very carefully
    11. avoid confusing (unlabelled) instance initialization blocks.

    Alhir98

    1. Sinan Si Alhir
    2. UML in a Nutshell
    3. O'Reilly, Cambridge, Mass, 1998 ISBN 1-56592-448-7
    4. =REFERENCE to UML1.1 (OMG UML1.0) CR9908-0596
    5. Comprehensive and with very few errors! Reference not readable.
    6. Errata and comments on the UML on the WWW [ ~salhir ]

    AllenA94

    1. Arnold O Allen
    2. Introduction to Computer Performance Analysis with Mathematica
    3. CS&SciComp Acad Press 1994 ISBN 0-12-051070-7 Review p492 AMM May 1994
    4. =TEXTBOOK with disk TECHNIQUE->QUALITY

    AllenB94

    1. Bradley P Allen
    2. Case-Based Reasoning: Business Applications
    3. Comm ACM V37n3(Mar 1994)(AI issue)pp40-44
    4. =ARTICLE AI

    AllenCD95

    1. C Dennis Allen
    2. Succeeding as a Clandestine Change Agent
    3. Commun ACM V38n5(May 1995)pp81-86
    4. =HISTORY USER PEOPLE SYSTEMS
    5. The Water Torture Method
    6. p82: "I discovered that automating a manual process can break the customer's work practice."

    Allman90

    1. Eric Allman
    2. By the pricking of my thumbs(article)
    3. UNIX Review V9n2(Feb 1991)pp66-69. History of FORTRAN and C
    4. =HISTORY C FORTRAN LANGUAGES

    Alonzo03

    1. Omar Alonzo
    2. Generating Text Search Applications for DataBases
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n3(May/Jun 2003)pp98-105
    4. =DEMO DOMAIN XML GENERATE Java Web/Net SQL TEXT SEARCH Oracle DARE-Web YASEC
    5. XSLT less useful than DOM and SAX.

    AlfaroHenzinger01

    1. Luca de Alfaro & Thomas A Henzinger
    2. Interface Automata
    3. ACM SIGSOFT proc ESEC-8 FSE-9 Software Engineering Notes V26n5(Sep 2001)pp109-120
    4. =THEORY SPECIFICATION MODULE FSM/AUTOMATA INTERFACE NONSEQUENTIAL

    AlmeidaJrEtal03

    1. Jorge Rady de Almeida Jr & Joao Batista Camargo Jr & Bruno Abrantes Basseto & Sergio Miranda Paz
    2. Best Practices in Code Inspections for Safety-Critical Software
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n3(May/Jun 2003)pp56-63
    4. =EXPERIENCE RISKS QUALITIES SQA CODE INSPECTION
    5. Developed a useful checklist of defect types to find unsafe code.
    6. For example: Check that a constant has the same value in different modules even when in different languages!

    AlmeringEtAl07

    1. Vincent Almering & Michiel van Genuchten & Ger Cloudt & Peter J M Sonnemans
    2. Using Software Reliability Growth Models in Practice
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V24n6(Nov/Dec 2007)pp82-88
    4. =EXPERIENCE 5 MODELS TVs
    5. The models got better as more data was fitted.
    6. λ(t) :=failure intensity function.
    7. (GO): λ(t) =a*b*exp(-b*t).
    8. (delayed S): λ(t) =a*b^2*t*exp(-b*t).
    9. (log power): λ(t) = α*β*ln^(b-1)(1+t)/(1+t).
    10. (log Poisson): λ(t) = λ[0] / (λ[0] * θ * t + 1).

    Alsaadi04

    1. Ahmad Alsaadi
    2. A Performance analysis approach based on the UML Class diagram
    3. WOSP'04 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V29n1(Jan 2004)pp254-260
    4. =EXAMPLe PERFORMANCE NORMALIZATION UML
    5. Can get speed by denormalizing physical data.
    6. Very like SSADM physical design control.

    AlshayebLi03

    1. Mohammad Alshayeb & Wei Li
    2. An Empirical Validation of Object-Oriented Metrics in Two Different Iterative Software Processes
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n11(Nov 2003)pp1043-1049
    4. =EMPIRICAL Object-Oriented METRICS AGILE XP client-server stories vs JDK 1.[0-4] EVOLUTION PROCESSES JAVA EDITS
    5. metrics={WMC, DIT, LCOM, NLM, CTA, CTM}.
    6. analyses short-cycle vs long-cycle.
    7. The metrics with multi-linear regression predict the amount of change (and effort) well in the later cycles of an XP process.
    8. Not so useful in the JDK long-cycle evolution.
    9. |-" prediction is impossible at the beginning of the " [XP] " process because there is very little substantive design structure in the system".
    10. Idea: critical mass of classes needed to define metrics that predict XP effort.

    AltendorfHohmanZabicki02

    1. Eric Altendorf & Moses Hohman & Roman Zabicki
    2. Using J2EE on a large, Web-Based Project
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V19n2(Mar/Apr 2002)pp81-89
    4. =EXPERIENCE WEB/NET MODULE COMPONENT JAVA J2EE

    AlurDill94

    1. R Alur & D L Dill
    2. A Theory of Timed Automata
    3. Theoretical Computer Science V126 pp183-235 1994
    4. =THEORY AUTOMATA TIMING

    AlurEtessamiYannakakis03

    1. Rajeev Alur & Kousha Etessami & Mihallis Yannakakis
    2. Inference of Massage Sequence Charts
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n7(Jul 2003)pp623-633
    4. =THEORY MESSAGE SEQUENCE CHARTS MSC AUTOMATA FSM non-SEQUENTIAL
    5. When do a set of MSCs describe a possible system with no surprising behaviors allowed?
    6. MSC define partial orders on sequences of messages.
    7. Realize as a set of parallel communicating FSM automata.
    8. Communication between automata is not FIFO (data flow) but via Bags.
    9. To get tractable algorithms must not consider sets of automata that can deadlock.

    Aluretal93

    1. R Alur & C Courcoubetis & D L Dill
    2. Model checking in dense real time
    3. Information and Computation V104 pp2-34(1993)
    4. =DEMO TIMING MODEL

    AlvarezDiazLlopisPimentalTroya04

    1. J M Alvarez & M Diaz & L Llopis & E Pimental & J M Troya
    2. An Object-Oriented methodology for embedded real-time systems
    3. Computer Journal V46n2( 2003)pp121-145
    4. =EXAMPLE Object-Oriented TIMING RMA SDL UML OOM-ERT

    AmblerBurnett89

    1. Alan L Ambler & Margaret M Burnett
    2. Influence of Visual Technology on the Evolution of Language Environments
    3. IEEE Computer v22 n10 (Oct 1989)pp9-22
    4. =HISTORY GRAPHIC LANGUAGE

    Ambleretal92

    1. Alan L Ambler & Margaret M Burnett & Betsy A Zimmerman
    2. Operational Versus Definitional: A Perspective on Programming Paradigms
    3. IEEE Computer v25n9(Sep 1992)pp28-43
    4. =DEFINITION TECHNICAL LANGUAGES

    AmblerS95

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Reduce Development Costs with Use-Case Scenario Testing
    3. Software Development Magazine(Jul 1995)pp 53-61
    4. =DEMO USE-CASE SCENARIO TEST

    AmblerS95a

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Mapping Objects to Relational Databases
    3. Software Development Magazine(Oct 1995)pp63+64+67+68+70+72+letter(Jan 1996)p13
    4. =DEMO DATA ERDs OBJECT-ORIENTED
    5. reply to letter "why no OODBMS": (1) security (2)no track record (3) no efficient support for SQL/reporting tools (3) one thing at a time

    AmblerS96

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. An Ounce of Prevention: Class Type Architectures
    3. Software Development Magazine(Mar 1996)pp 40??45-61
    4. =DEMO WWW/NET ARCHITECTURE OBJECTs DATA MVC PERSISTENCE TECHNICAL SYSTEM INFORMATION HIDING
    5. Compare with UML Boundary vs Control vs Entity
        N2 chart of "Sends message to"
        Table
        UserX000
        XInterface 10rare
        000BusinessOOCRUDsome
        0000Persistenceoften
        02222System

        (Close Table)
      1. 0. No connection
      2. 1. restricted flow
      3. 2. Feedback: callbacks, dispatched objects
      4. OOCRUD=OO create read update delete.

        system & persistence: wrap well defined technical features, so mostly code and debug

        Business: analysis, understand first

        Interface: prototyping... coding trivial


    AmblerS96a

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Object-Relational Mapping
    3. Software Development Magazine V4n10(Oct 1996)pp47-50
    4. =DEMO DATA OBJECT-ORIENTED
    5. wrap db; encapsulate;classes drive data; obj IDs as keys only; joins of keys only; arbitrary obj keys; use a data dictionary; do not map to a legacy data base(unless it is in 3NF)

    AmblerS97a

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Normalizing Classes
    3. Software Development V5n4(Apr 1997)pp69-72
    4. =DEMO DATA OBJECT-ORIENTED
    5. increasing cohesion and coupling by redesign but result is not in even 1NF in Codd terms.
    6. Adds a repeating group of enrollments to seminar.
    7. Better: Seminar<-<Enrollment>->Student and new Enrollment(seminar student) handles enrollments responsibillities for connecting seminars and students.
    8. Note: ends up with SSADM composite logical design!

    AmblerS97b

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Implementing Pick Lists of Object
    3. Software Development Magazine V5n6(Jun 1997)pp73-76
    4. =DEMO USER DATA Flyweight?
    5. ways to handle stable identified/enumerated objects without involving overheads of persistent storage. Example: The days of the week and the states in the USA. Class stores data on all instances and is different for each subclass.

    AmblerS97c

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. The State Diagram
    3. Software Development Magazine V5n5(May 1997)pp83-88
    4. =DEMO STD/FSM GRAPHIC
    5. accidentally illustrates RISKS of STDs by showing STD that allows an overdrawn account to become nonoverdrawn when a query is made and vice versa. Also requires a single deposit to finish overdrawn status.

    AmblerS97d

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. The Various Uses for Use Cases
    3. Software Development magazine V5n11(Nov 1997)pp69-71
    4. SCENARIOS glossary(p70) <<uses>> <extends>>

    AmblerS98

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Evolving Class Diagrams
    3. Software Development Magazine V6n5(May 1998)pp69-72
    4. =DEMO LIFECYCLE OOA/OOD UML
    5. need three linked class diagrams (1) behavior and names of business objects; (2) normalized data and design patterns; (3)implementation using Gang-of-four patterns

    AmblerS99

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Engineering Object-Oriented Requirements
    3. Software Development Magazines V7n3(Mar 1999)pp55-56+58
    4. =SURVEY of MODELs
    5. CRC+User Interface+Use-Case+Business Rules+Activity+Deployment+Supplementary
    6. Also: Interface-Flow++Physical Data+Sequence+Collaboration+State Chart+Technical

    AmblerS99b

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Architecting for Change
    3. Software Development Magazine V7n5(May 1999)pp56-58
    4. =DEMO DOCUMENTATION UML EVOLUTION
    5. defines the <<Change Case>> stereotype to describe new potential requirements and modifications to existing requirements.

    AmblerS99c

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Distributed Object Design
    3. Software Development Magazine V7n6(Jun 1999)pp34-36+38-40
    4. =DEMO DOCUMENTATION UML WEB/NET
    5. 9_steps::=(add_non_business_classes; contracts; simplify; collobating_clusters; contracts; simplify_interfaces; map_onto_physical)

    AmblerS99d

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Persistence Modeling in the UML
    3. Software Development Magazine V7n8(Aug 1999)pp54-57
    4. =ADVERT proposal for DOCUMENTATION UML profile DATA MODEL
    5. stereotypes include table, entity, view, primary index, secondary index, candidate key, oid, trigger
    6. Why doesn't he use Qualifiers to indicate keys and indexes?

    AmblerS99e

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Enterprise-Ready Object IDs
    3. Software Development Magazine V7n12(Dec1999)pp56-57
    4. =IDEA PERFORMANCE OBJECT-ORIENTED DISTRIBUTED TECHNICAL
    5. HIGH-LOW Strategy: server allocates contiguous groups of IDs to processes that create persistent objects by sending high-order bits to processes while process assign low-order bits.

    6. Letter: V8n2(Feb 2000)p12 from Jeff Senn corrects misunderstanding caused by Ambler looking at non-compliant code. Standard UUID (MS GUID) works at least as well.

    AmblerS99f

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. More process patterns: delivering large-scale systems using object technology
    3. Cambridge U Press NY NY 1999 ISBN 0-521-65262-6
    4. =HANDBOOK UML RUP PROCESS PATTERNS

    AmblerS00

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. new year's resolutions
    3. Software Development Magazine V7n1 (Jan 2000)pp50-51
    4. =ESSAY ETHICS
    5. no harm, reuse, requirements, model, justifiable, no mantras, multiple views, more than performance, respect&work with users, realistic plans, communication skills, habitual learning, test everything, document everything, more to software than tech..

    AmblerS00b

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Reuse Patterns and Antipatterns
    3. Software Development V8n2(Feb 2000)pp26-27
    4. =SURVEY tabulates and evaluates various EXPERIENCE REUSE PROCESS PATTERNS

    AmblerS00c

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Crossing the Object-Data Divide: Parts 1 and 2
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n3(Nov/Dec 2000)pp69-70 and V8n4(Apr 2000)pp66-69
    4. =ESSAY PEOPLE OBJECT vs DATA

    Ambler00d

    1. Scott W Amber
    2. The Unified Process Elaboration Phase
    3. R&D Books 2000
    4. =TEXTBOOK RUP

    Ambler00e

    1. Scott W Amber
    2. Requirements Engineering Patterns
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n5(May 2000)pp58-60
    4. =ADVERT [Ambler00d]
    5. Requirements first, Requirements as a stick, Requirements as a shield.

    Ambler00f

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Enterprise JavaBean Persistence 101
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n8(Aug 2000)pp51-52+54
    4. =ADVERT TECHNICAL JAVA DATA PATTERN EJB
    5. see [Pour00] [Larman00]
    6. primary key is an object (with id and methods etc not just data) that identifies complete object.

    Ambler00g

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. XML in the real world
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n9(Sep 2000)pp59-60+62
    4. =IDEA XML XSL SOAP SEMANTICS
    5. Lack of semantics will be a problem. Needs experience and process to design DTDs.

    Ambler00h

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Enterprise Java-Bean Persistence 201
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n9(Oct 2000)pp53-55
    4. =TUTORIAL EJB 2.0 OBJECTS DATA

    Ambler00i

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Extreme Modeling
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n11(Nov 2000)pp61-62+64
    4. =IDEA MODEL artefacts
    5. p64. sidebar of XP resorces.

    Ambler00j

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Reuse Through Internal Open Source
    3. Software Development Magazine V8n12(Dec 2000)pp57+59
    4. =ADVERT Osage =HOWTO
    5. Resources [ http://www.opensource.org ] [ http://www.collab.net ] [ http://sourceforge.net ]
    6. Osage::= See http://osage.opensource.org.
    7. Internal open source focus on encouraging programmers to simply cooperate on producing high quality shared modules with minimal process but careful over-sight.

    Ambler01a

    1. scott W Ambler
    2. Object Concurrency Control 101
    3. Software Development Magazine V9n1(Jan 2001)pp57-58
    4. =TUTORIAL SIMPLE NONSEQUENTIAL OBJECT DATA
    5. None | optimistic | pessimistic.
    6. pessimstic locks data. optimistic marks it to find out if another process has updated the data. collison resolution.

    Ambler01b

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Designing Web-Based User Interfaces
    3. Software Development Magazine V9n3(Mar 2001)pp61-63
    4. =HOWTO WWW/NET USER COLOR LAYOUT HTML FORM
    5. "Functional not flashy!"
    6. Indicate what must be done, and what is optional on a form.

    Ambler01c

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Debunking Modeling Myths
    3. Software Development Magazine V9n8(Aug 2001)pp51-53 + letters V9n9(Sep 2001)p12
    4. =ESSAY MODELING
    5. Models are not documentation.
    6. You can't think everything thru first.
    7. Modeling can be light/agile
    8. You don't have to freeze requirements.
    9. Designs don't have to be cast in stone.
    10. You don't need a CASE tool. Simple low tech do most models.
    11. Modeling can improve productivity.
    12. Models don't all revolve around data.
    13. It takes time to learn how to model.

    Ambler01d

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. The Secret Life of Systems Operations
    3. Software Development Magazine V9n10(Oct 2001)pp49-51
    4. =REMINDER SYSTEM ADMIN

    Ambler02

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Easy Does it
    3. Software Development Magazine V10n3(Mar 2002)pp53-55
    4. =EXPERIENCE MODEL AGILE
    5. Use the simplest tool.
    6. Example: Develop on white board; take a digital snapshot, pass through image improving software through to OCR!
    7. Whiteboard_Photo::gadget= See http://www.pixid.com.

    Ambler02b

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Tools and Evidence
    3. Software Development Magazine V10n5(May 2002)pp65-66
    4. =IDEA AGILE MODEL CODE DOCUMENTATION LIFECYCLE UML
    5. Need to rapidly record ideas. and some ideas need to be preserved.
    6. Has a class diagram: source code contains comments that are a type of documentation. source code is modeled by models. Some models are in documents. Documents are a type of documentation.
    7. Has a state chart showing the transitions between Ideas(I), temporary models(T), and permanent models(P) : Start--->I--abandon->end, I--model-->T--keep->P--discard->end, T--update->T, P--update->P, P--version->P, T--discard->end, P--make temporary->T.

    Ambler02c

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Lessons in Agility from Internet-Based development
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V19n2(Mar/Apr 2002)pp66-73
    4. =EXPERIENCE AGILE MODEL WEB/NET PROCESS UML RUP HTML PEOPLE
    5. Comparison of two companies. Finding the right amount of documentation and the right kind of model for a particular situation.
    6. Tabulates principles and where they fitted experience. Lessons
      1. People matter.
      2. You don't need as much documentation as you think.
      3. Communication is critical.
      4. Modeling tools are not as useful as you think.
      5. You need a wide variety of intellectual models.
      6. Big up-front design was not needed.
      7. Reuse the wheel. Don't reinvent it.

    Ambler02d

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. The Fragile Manifesto
    3. Software Development Magazine V10n8(Aug 2002)pp50-51
    4. =JOKE AGILE PROCESSES PEOPLE DOCUMENTATION USER TEAM
    5. Ironic and twisted summary of [Ambler02c]

    Ambler03

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Ten Steps to a Robust DB
    3. Software Development Magazine V11n2(Feb 2003)pp42-43
    4. =EXAMPLE DATA ERD EVOLUTION REFACTORING UML
    5. Process:=verify need; choose best; data cleansing; write unit tests; deprecate old schema; implement change; update DBMS scripts; run tests; document; version control.
    6. See list of ways to refactor a data base (like Replace Column,...) [ catalog.html ]
    7. Example of UML documentation of changes({removal date=...} and <<trigger>>s

    Ambler03b

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Agility 2013
    3. Software Development Magazine V11n4(Apr 2003)pp46-47
    4. =FORECAST AGILE XP CRAFT SKETCHES VISUAL IDEs COBOL

    AmblerS04

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Agile Database Techniques: Effective Strategies for the Agile Software Developer
    3. John Wiley & Sons 2004 ISBN 0-471-20283-5
    4. =UNREAD AGILE DATA
    5. Basis on the web at [ http://www.agiledata.org/ ]
    6. (dick)|-how long does it take to add a new data item to an entity in a large existing database?

    AmblerS04a

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. Are Your Models Normal?
    3. Software Development Magazine, Agile Modelling Newsletter (Dec 2004)
    4. =IDEA DOCUMENTATION MODEL NORMALIZATION DRY
    5. "record information as few times as possible, ideally only once."
    6. artifact:="any item created during a software development project including code, model, document, plan, etc".
    7. artifact_normalization::="placing information about systems in the best single artifact".
    8. Generate views. Cross reference, links, and inclusions.
    9. DITA::="Darwin Information Typing Architecture", XML based technical documentation, Parallel to single_sourced technical documentation, normalized data bases, and coherent modularization.
    10. (dick)|-"Are there cross cutting concerns? Compare with Aspect oriented programming".
    11. (dick)|- (meta-data): "Documentation is data about a system and should be treated as data".
    12. Compare with POLL [LethbridgeSingerForward03]

    Ambler03

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Agile database techniques: effective strategies for the agile software developer
    3. John Wiley NY NY 2003 ISBN 0471202835 CR 0502-0163
    4. =HOWTO AGILE DATA REFACTOR NORMALIZE Object-Oriented
    5. From [Amblers04] and [Amblers03]

    Ambler05

    1. Scott W Ambler
    2. The Elements of UML2.0 Style
    3. Cambridge UP 2005
    4. =ADVERT UML AGILE STYLE
    5. Nice book but Not always standard and sometimes apposed by standard

    Ambler07

    1. Scott Ambler
    2. Calculating Documentation Cruft
    3. Dr. Dobb's Agile Newsletter (27 Jul 2007)
    4. =IDEA DOCUMENTATION METRIC CRUFT
    5. CRUFT::percent= 100 - C * R * U * F * T where
      • C:=The percentage of the document that is correct,
      • R:=The chance that the document will read by the intended audience,
      • U:=The percentage of the document that will be understood,
      • F:=The chance that the material contained in the document will be followed,
      • T:=The chance that the document will be trusted.

    6. (dick)|-perhaps we could use Shannon Communication Theory to measure the capacity, equivocation, etc of a document in bits?

    AmbriolaNotkin88

    1. V ambriola & D Notkin
    2. Reasoning About Interactive Systems
    3. IEEE Trans Softw Eng SE-V14n2(Feb 1988)pp272-276
    4. =THEORY LOGIC PROOF formal non-sequential

    AmericaRutten91

    1. P H M America & J J M M Rutten
    2. A Parallel Object-Oriented Language: Design and Semantic Foundations
    3. CWI(Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica) Tract V81 Centre for mathematics & computer science Amsterdam the Netherlands(Stichting Mathematisch Centrum) 1991
    4. ISBN 90-6196-402-4 CR9310-0751 QA3.A583 no.81
    5. =ADVERT LANGUAGE POOL
    6. cf Frits W Vaandrager in [Baetan90]

    Amsterdam02

    1. Jonathon Amsterdam
    2. Java's new Considered Harmful
    3. Dr. Dobbs #335(Apr 2002)pp19-20+22+24+26
    4. =PATTERNS creational JAVA factory methods and objects

    AnandalingamLucas05

    1. G Anandalingam & Henry C Lucas Jr
    2. The Winners Curse in High Tech
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V38n3(Mar 2005)pp96-97
    4. =ADVERT BOOK HISTORY TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS
    5. Companies often bid too much for a technology and get burned.
    6. Advertyises OUP 2004 book "Beware the Winner's Curse: Victories that can sink you and your company".

    AndasSjoberg05

    1. Bente Anda & Dag I Sjoberg
    2. Investigating the role of use cases in the construction of class diagrams
    3. Empirical Software Engineering V10n3(Jul 2005)pp285-309 CR 0807-0688
    4. =EXPERIMENT HOWTO DESIGN CLASS DIAGRAM USE CASE DOMAIN MODEL UML TOOLS Rose Tau
    5. Experimented with students and then with professionals.
    6. Compares two methods for going from usecases to design class diagrams: derivations vs validation.
    7. derivation:= use_case_text->domain_model; sequence_diagrams; design_class_diagram.
    8. validation:= use_case_text-> initial_class_diagram; sequence_diagrams; do( validate; extend).
    9. Measured time, completeness, and quality (coupling and cohesion).
    10. Tools didn't add to diagram quality with either students or professionals.
    11. Tools slowed down students but not professionals.
    12. Students got more complete design classes using validation rather than derivation.
    13. Students got better quality designs with the derivation method.
    14. Professionals -- no significant differences found.

    AndaSjobergMockus09

    1. Bente C D Anda & Dag I K Sjoberg & Audris Mockus
    2. variability and reproducibility in software engineering: a study of four companies that developed the same system
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V35n3(May/Jun 2009)pp407-429
    4. =EXPERIMENT COMPARISON QUALITIES OUTSOURCED USER CODE MAINTENANCE RELIABILITY COST ESTIMATES TIME PROCESS
    5. Sent out call for bids -- 34 responses, 4 selected -- to develop a web application in Scandinavia. Prices range from 2k Euros to 70k Euros!
    6. Many variables, no trustworthy hypotheses to test. Exploration.
    7. Concluded that only the usability was similar between 4 competing projects. The reliability, time to produce, size, and maintainability all varied between companies. There was evidence of a trade off between price and quality.

    Anderson94

    1. Bruce Anderson<bruce@essex.ac.uk>
    2. OOPSLA'93 Workshop Report Patterns: Building Blocks for Object-Oriented Architectures(27th sept 1993)
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng Notes V19n1(Jan 1994)pp47-49 [Alexander79]
    4. =DEMO PATTERN Ticked Objects [Anderson94] [Johnson94] [Lea94]

    Anderson95

    1. Bruce Anderson<bruce@essex.ac.uk>
    2. OOPSLA'94 Workshop Report Patterns: Building Organisational Competence in Software Architecture

    Anderson99

    1. Ross J Anderson
    2. The Formal Verification of a Payment System
    3. In [HincheyBowen99] pp43-52
    4. =EXPERIENCE LOGIC BAN VERIFYING PROTOCOL BANKING PAYMENT SMARTCARD
    5. Used BAN_logic with new rule:
    6. If A believes that A and B share key K and A sees the K encrypts X then A will believe that B used K.
    7. Colored proof covering several white boards.
    8. System successful for several years with problems.
    9. Concludes the it better to have a simple logic with few rules and no tool than a complex (buggy?) logic with a tool.

    AndersonFleekGarityDrake01

    1. Jean Anderson & Francis Fleek & Kathi Garity & Fred Drake
    2. Integrating Usability Techniques into Software Development
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V18n1(Jan/Feb 2000)pp46-53
    4. =EXPERIENCE SIEMENS HEALTH USER PEOPLE RUP workflow iteration
    5. Early user improves quality and eliminates rework.
    6. Organizational and cultural change is the important challenge. [ConstantineLockwood99]

    Andersonetal96

    1. Richard J Anderson & Paul Beame & Steve Burns & William Chaan & Francesmary Modugno & David Notkin & Jon D Reese
    2. Model Checking Large Software Specifications
    3. Proc 4th ACM SIGSOFT 1996 Symp on the Foundns of Software Eng: ACM SIGSEN V21n6(Nov 1996)pp156-166
    4. =DEMO V&V SPECIFICATIONS TOOL use Binary Decision Diagrams(BDDs) 200Mgbs!

    AndersonGouda91

    1. James H Anderson & Mohamed G Gouda
    2. A new explanation of the glitch phenomena
    3. Acta Informatica V28f4(Apr 1991)pp287-310
    4. =THEORY NONSEQUENTIAL all arbiters have both infinite delays and multiple changes in the values of outputs.

    AndersonHansenLowrySummers06

    1. Bonnie Brinton Anderson & James V Hansen & Paul Benjamin Lowry & Scott L Summers
    2. The application of model checking for secure E-commerce transactions
    3. Commun ACM V49n6(Jun 2006)pp97-101
    4. =EXAMPLE V&V ECOMMERCE PROTOCOLS MODEL CHECKING RISKS
    5. Given the complexity of ECommerce systems and protocols plus the risks of failure, the protocols should be checked prior to implementation.

    AndersonRepsTeitelbaum03

    1. Paul Anderson & Thomas Reps & Tim Teitelbaum
    2. Design and implementation of a fine-grained software inspection tool
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n8(Aug 2003)pp721-733
    4. =ADVERT V&V CODE INSPECTION C TOOL CodeSurfer(TM) TECHNICAL SLICES CHOPS HYPERTEXT VIEWS

    AndersonShapiro89

    1. RH Anderson & NZ Shapiro
    2. Beyond User Friendly: Easy To...
    3. EDUCOM Review v24 n3(Fall 1989) p50-54
    4. =ESSAY USER

    AnderssonGreenspunGrumet06

    1. Eve Andersson & Philip Greenspun & Andrew Grumet
    2. Software Engineering for Internet Applications
    3. MIT Press Cambridge MA 2006 ISBN 0262511916 CR 0712-1164

    AnderssonRuneson07

    1. Carina Andersson & Per Runeson
    2. A replicated quantitative analysis of Fault distributions is complex software systems
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V33n5(May 2007)pp273-286
    4. =EXPERIENCES ANALYSIS SIZE MODULES RELIABILITY
    5. Repeats [FentonOhlsson00].
    6. Few modules contain most faults - pre & post release.
    7. Fault densities are similar in similar environments.

    Andexer01

    1. Jens Andexer
    2. Design Guidelines and Documentation Paradigms for Object Oriented Programs
    3. SERG Report 397 (Sep 2001)P422,, McMasters [ serg.publications.html ]
    4. =SURVEY EVOLUTION OBJECT_ORIENTED

    AndleighGretzinger92

    1. Prabhat K Andleigh & Michael R Gretzinger
    2. Distributed Object-oriented Data-systems Design
    3. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ 1992 ISBN 0-13-174913-7 CR9309-0658
    4. =SURVEY METHODS OBEJCT-ORIENTED DATA DESIGN
    5. Review: Frame-object analysis combines features of earlier systems analysis methods with the newer object-oriented concepts. survey 5 well known (but not Coad)...

    Andreetal81

    1. Andre & Banatre & Routeau
    2. A Multi-processing Approach to Compile-Time Symbol Resolution
    3. ACM TOPLAS v3n1(Jan 1981)pp11-23
    4. =DEMO DDD Clash

    Andrews93

    1. James H Andrews
    2. Logic Programming: Operational Semantics & Proof Theory
    3. Cambridge University Press NY NY 1993 ISBN 0-521-43219-7 CR9503-0142
    4. =THEORY LANGUAGES

    AndrewsP03

    1. Pater B Andrews
    2. Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: to truth through proof
    3. Kluwer Acad Pub Norwell MA 2002 ISBN 1402007639 CR 0305-0427
    4. =THEORY LOGIC TYPES LAMBDA PEANO

    AndrewsLeventhal93

    1. Dorine C Andrews & Namoi S Leventhal
    2. FUSION: Integrating IE, CASE and JAD: a handbook for reengineering the systems organisation
    3. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ 1993 ISBN 0-13-325333-3 CR9308-0568
    4. =HANDBOOK CASE USER

    AndrewsZhang03

    1. James Andrews & Yinqjun Zhang
    2. General Test Result Checking with Log File Analysis
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n7(Jul 2003)pp634-648
    4. =EXPERIMENT RANDOM TESTING LOG TIMED FSM LFA lift language LFAL Prolog dictionary ADT
    5. SUT::="Software Under Test".
    6. LFA::="Log file analysis"..

    Andriole94

    1. Steve Andriole
    2. Fast Cheap Requirements: Prototype or Else
    3. IEEE Software magazine v11n2(Mar 1994)pp85-87
    4. =ADVERT PROTOTYPE REQUIREMENTs

    Andriole95

    1. Stephen J Andriole(CIGNA)
    2. Debatable Developent: What should we believe?
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V12n4(Jun 1995)pp13-18
    4. =ESSAY THEORY vs PRACTICE METHODS
    5. p13: "There is an enormous disconnection between what academicians and consultants think will revolutionize development and what actually works in the trenches. We have much to learn about what really works
    6. what works a little
    7. and what does not work at all." [AndrioleMonsanto95]

    AndrioleMonsanto95

    1. Stephen J Andriole(<andriole@cigna.e-mail.com> & Charlton A Monsanto<mnsanca@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu>
    2. Interactive Collaborative Requirements Management
    3. Software Development(Sep 1995)pp35-40
    4. =DEMO Do-It-Yourself TOOL REQUIREMENTS VISUALBASIC
    5. Requirements: Its easier and cheaper to use a set of simple tools and templates (flowcharters databases ... prototypers) under the control of a Visual Basic workbench than even Integrated CASE tools

    Anguela09

    1. Andrew Anguelo
    2. Software Methodology Wars (Viewpoint)
    3. IEEE Computer Society Career Watch Mailing list (Mar 2009) [ vp4 ]
    4. =ESSAY PROCES METHODS DEVELOPMENT vs ENGINEERING ONE-SIZE ECONOMICS SHORT-TERM vs LONG_TERM
    5. Quote
      Net
        Development is based on iterations of trial and error in the absence of knowledge and facts. It most often found in organizations that don't value their software technology as a critical business asset and treat it as a necessary evil or a cost of doing business. Business executives in these types of organizations operate very much like those during the dot-com boom days. Itbis based on iterations of trial and error in the absence of knowledge and facts. It no surprise that today's more popular development methodologies are based on principles that shun documentation, engineering thought patterns, and encourage the use of loosely conceived ideas in production environments under the guise of flexibility.

        [...]

        Engineering methodologies are much more methodical than development methodologies. Consideration of past, present, and future, as well as adherence to standards and practices are all core principles of software engineering. Although not perfect, these methodologies facilitate the design of systems with intent and that embody the characteristics of reliability, maintainability, and scalability. Such results come at a price however.


      (End of Net)


    6. (dick)|-Ignores the claim that refactoring software can maintain the quality of software.

    Anon(HOS)84

    1. Product brochure
    2. Building Systems with USE.IT
    3. Higher Order Software Inc. 1984 (2067 Massuchusetts Ave Cambridges MA 02140)
    4. =ADVERT TOOL METHOD

    Anon90

    1. Anonymous but verified letter
    2. IEEE Software Magazine V7n1(Mar 1990)p4
    3. =LETTER whistleblowing engineering RISKS

    ANSI/IEEE87

    1. IEEE Computer Society
    2. ANSI/IEEE Software Engineering Standards
    3. IEEE/John Wiley 1987
    4. =STANDARD lifecycle Technical

    ANSI/IEEE90

    1. IEEE Computer Society
    2. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Engineering Terminology(ANSI/IEEE Std. 610.12-1990)
    3. IEEE Piscataway NJ
    4. =STANDARD GLOSSARY
    5. software_engineering::="The application of systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation and maintenance of software; that is the application of engineering to software."

    ANSI83ADA

    1. ANSI
    2. American National Standard for the programming language ADA
    3. Washington DC Jan/Feb 1983
    4. =STANDARD Ada LRM LANGUAGE

    AntonPotts03

    1. Annie I Anton & Colin Potts
    2. Functional Paleontology: The evolution of User-Visible System services
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n2(Feb 2003)pp151-166
    4. =EMPIRICAL HISTORY PURPOSE QUALITY REALITY EVOLUTION 50-years domestic telephones
    5. Lehman's theory of E-systems that co-evolve with there environment implies that understanding environment change should proceed architectural design.
    6. Systems vs services. Systems provide both benefits and burdens. A dialectic process.
    7. Functional_Morphology::=profile of benefits and burdens at a given point.
    8. Analyzed 1950-1999 adverts in Atlanta Telephone directories.
    9. Evidence of punctuated evolution, expansion followed by retrenchment, growth from core outward, caller benefits first, object-level precedes meta-level.

    AntoniolCanforaCasazzaLuciaMerlo02

    1. Giuliano Antoniol & Gerardo Canfora & Gerardo Casazza & Andrea De Lucia & Ettore Merlo
    2. Recovering Traceability Links between Code and Documentation
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n10(Oct 2002)pp970-983
    4. =CASESTUDY IR PROBABILITY VECTOR-SPACE TRACEABILITY LIFE-CYCLE
    5. 2 methods: one uses Bayes and frequencies. the other a vector space with distance/similarity formula/metric.
    6. Both are better than grep. Both can achieve 100% recall of all relevant.
    7. Probability based figures help teams trace code back to documentation.
    8. Probability gets better when 100% recall is needed.. Vector calculations are easier.

    AntoniolEtal04

    1. Giulano Antoniol & Aniello Cimitile & Guisepe A Di Lucca & Massimliano Di Penta
    2. Assessing Staffing Needs for a Software Maintenance Project through Queuing simulation
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n1(Jan 2004)pp43-58
    4. =EXPERIENCE PROCESS ESTIMATION QUEUES SIMULATION EVOLUTION PEOPLE COBOL/JCL Y2K QUEUEING THEORY
    5. Assumed that Brooks law did not hold for Y2K. Future: conversion to euro, new euro-phone numbers.
    6. QUEUE:Stochastic_System=Net{ interarrival, service:Distribution, number_of_servers:Nat=1, capacity:Nat=oo, discipline:Discipline=FIFO}.
    7. Distribution:={Markovian, Deterministic, Erlang[k], General}.
    8. Erlang[1]:=exponential.
    9. Case study used QUEUE(M,G,m) model.
    10. Lessons earned: simulating queuing models helped predict staffing needs and do what-ifs for team size and rework rates.
    11. But need daily figures (not weekly!).
    12. Not steady state: start up and close down phase are 30%of whole.
    13. Queuing simulation tends to overestimate needs and so minimizes risk of over run.

    AntoniolGueheneuc06

    1. Giuliano Antoniol & Yann-Gael Gueheneuc
    2. Feature Identification: an epidemiological metaphor
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V32n9(Sep 2006)pp625-641
    4. =DEMO MAINTENANCE TECHNICALREVERSE ENGINEERING TOOL CODE MODULE ANALYSIS
    5. A way to find out, by executing software the parts used to implement a feature.

    Antoniou99

    1. Grigoris Antoniou
    2. A Tutorial on Default Logics
    3. ACM ACM Computing Surveys V31n4(Dec 1999) pp337-359 CR0006-0401
    4. =TUTORIAL FORMAL LOGIC DEFAULT INFERENCE EXCEPTIONS
    5. default :=if Prereq : Justifications then Consequent, if Prereq then Consequent unless Justifications is known to be false where no free variables in parts.
    6. default schema has free variables - stands for all substitutions.
    7. normal: if P : J then J
    8. closed world : if true : not A then not A
    9. Not just inferences but also extensions of sets known facts by applying defaults that don't lead to contradictions

    AntoyGannon94

    1. Sergio Antoy & John Gannon
    2. Using Term Rewriting to Verify Software
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-20n4(Apr 1994)pp259-274
    4. =THEORY MATHEMATICAL PROOF PROGRAM
        Power Functions
        1. as a tool in annotating and proving programs
        2. assumes that statements compute functions on states
        3. pf is the powerfunction of statement iff pf(k,s)= ([statement]^k) (s)
        4. R:condition, w:=while(b)(f),
        5. wp(w,R)(s) = for some k:0..( R(pf(k,s))
        6. and k= μ i:0..(not b(pf(i,s)))
        7. )

        representation as a kind of morphism.
      1. p263: Ada - lack of means to annotate and verify semantic properties of elements in a package. Uaing the idea of a monoid of program functions.
      2. p264: Specifying a C++ class by relationships between its operations member functions) and showing their completeness.
      3. p265: Definition of subtyping (cf Liskov) includes annotated properties... but no representation function. TermRewritingSystems, Confluence Church-Rosser. Termination/Noetherian. Both gives cannonical or convergent or complete TRS. (see Wechler 1992) Ask specifiers to specs as a cannonical TRS.
      4. hence overspecification(superposition algorithm Leavens 1991)and underspecification(another algorithm...)
      5. pp266..267:Cannot compute confluence and termination. Hence strategies for ensuring them.
      6. pp267..: Proving theorems: difficult, neeed tool to help.
      7. p271 problems with module interconnections...


    AntoyHamlet00

    1. Sergio Antoy & Dick Hamlet
    2. Automatically checking an implementation against its Formal Specification
    3. IEEE Trans Software Eng V26n1(Jan 2000)pp55-69
    4. =DEMO THEORY TEST SQA EXPERIMENT JAVA

    Aoyama93

    1. Mikio Aoyama (Fujitsu)<mikio@miki.nakahara.fujitsu.co.jp>
    2. Concurrent-Development Process Model
    3. IEEE Software Magazine (May 1993)pp48-55
    4. =EXPERIENCE management maturity non-sequential YAC(Aoyamaetal89) becomes YPL
        To reduce development cycle (time for a release). 10^6 lines of code 3 months/cycle. Higher risks and so more careful management helps expose problems in process Requires at least a repeatable process maturity. p50: "For the large-scale communication project, therefore, we described the entire development process up to the details of the invidual developer's task, and analysed them. We then restructured a conventional process model to support concurrent development and developped a process-management system" p50:"traditional models focus on a single sequence of [...]; concurrent[...] focusses on the concurrent execution of multiple processes" Uncovering interactions between parallel requirements+designs by intensive review and inspection + management focus on decoupling requirements Interactions between implementations use configuration management. + integration focussed testing Special team from teams: define process, manage products, co-ordinate, develop management technique, plan, specify, and develop software-engineering environments and coordinate with research.

    Aoyamaetal89

    1. Mikio Aoyama & K Miyamoto & N Murakama & H Nagano & Y Oki
    2. Design Specification in Japan: Tree Structured Charts
    3. IEEE Software Magazine v6n2(Mar 1989)pp31-37
    4. =ADVERT graphic YAC

    ApelLeachSaake08

    1. Sven Apel & Thomas Leach & Gunter Saake
    2. Aspectual Feature Modules
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V34n2(Mar/Apr 2008)pp162-180
    4. =DEMO FEATURES FOP + ASPECTS AOP ITERATION PRODUCT LINES AFM
    5. AFM::="Aspectual Feature Module", combines iterative Feature Oriented Programming (FOP) with Aspect Oriented Programming(AOP).

    AppelbeAbowd95

    1. Bill Appelbe <bill@cc.gatech.edu> & Gregory Abowd<abowd@cc.gatech.edu>
    2. Beyond Objects: A Response
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V20n3(Jul 1995)pp
    4. =ESSAY
        Shows that Booch86 is no longer a Booch OOD and so is not a valid base for rejecting OO methods for process control systems (as claimed by Mary Shaw Jan 1995 SEN)

        Claims experience shows that process control loops need to be replaced by OO designs(SEI Teh report CMU/SEI-93-TR-14 Aug 1993)


    Apt88

    1. Krzysztof R Apt
    2. Proving Correctness of Concurrent Programs: A Quick Introduction
    3. Chapter 7 (pp305-345) of Borger88
    4. =THEORY NONSEQUENTIAL CORRECTNESS PROOF

    Aptetal80

    1. Krzysztof R Apt & Francez & De Roever
    2. A Proof System for Communicating Sequential Processes
    3. ACM TOPLAS V2n3(Jul 1980)pp359-385
    4. =THEORY LOGIC CSP formal

    ApvrilleEtal04

    1. Ludovic Apvrille & Jean-PIere Courtat & Christophe Lohr & Pierre de Saqui-Sannes
    2. TURTLE: A Real-Time UML Profile Supported by a Formal Validation Tool
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n7(Jul 2004)pp473-487
    4. =TYPE REALTIME MODEL V&V UML1.5 PROFILE TCLASSES TTOOL RT-LOTOS RTL
    5. Notes

    Arango95

    1. Guillermo Arango(arango@austin.sar.slb.com)
    2. Software reusability and the Internet [SamadzadehZand95] pp22-23
        The internet could make a big difference - it changes what are the relevant problems in Sw reuse. Scale (worwide) gives new laws and issues. what you need is available somewhere! (but can you trust it)

        People help in the retrieval via newsgroups. "self appointed intelligent librarians".

        Products and services.

        informations borkers/librarians on the net.

        Willl need to keep a software technology watch over assets standards services trends.

        NEED: standards and Processes... like the news eg.


    Arangoetal86

    1. Guillermo Arango & Ira Baxter & Peter Freeman & Christopher Pidgeon(all at UCI)
    2. TMM: Software Maintenance by Transformation
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V3n3(May 1986)pp27-39
    4. =ADVERT for Draco based: make abstraction before porting using domain specific thingies

    Aranow89

    1. Eric Aranow
    2. Full Lifecycle CASE: Views from the Tower of Babel
    3. System Builder (Oct/Nov 1989)
    4. =REPORT CASE tools process
    5. Pictures of three different life cycles: "waterfall", "Rapid Iterative Prototyping", "Iterative redefinition and redesign".
    6. Does not describe the idea of implementing part of the system first to refine and elicit requirements.

    Aranow92

    1. Eric Aranow
    2. Object Technology Means Object-Oriented Thinking
    3. Software Magazine (Mar 1992)
    4. The baggage of the structured techniques - concentrate on the up-front analysis to get our class hierarchies properly defined

    ArbaughFithenMcHugh00

    1. William A Arbaugh & William L Fithen & John McHugh
    2. Windows of Vulnerability: A Case study Analysis
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n12(Dec 2000)pp52-5
    4. =ANALYSIS CERT Exploits IMAP phf BIND 1996-1999
    5. Three buffer-overflow magnitude and one miss-out mistake.
    6. Automating a vulnerability (not disclosing it) allows many more intrusions.
    7. Systems are not being managed well: Nearly all intrusions could have been halted if known precautions installed.

    Arbib64

    1. Michael Arbib
    2. Brains Machines & Mathematics
    3. USA McGraw Hill 1964
    4. =TEXT cybernetics theory

    Arbib68

    1. Michael A. Arbib (ed) & K Krohn & J L. Rhodes
    2. Algebraic Theory of Machines Languages & Semigroups
    3. Academic Press New York 1968
    4. =TEXT topology

    ArblasterSimeGreen

    1. ?? Arblaster & ?? Sime && ?? Green
    2. Jumping to Some Purpose
    3. Comp Jnl v22 n2 (May 1979) pp105-109
    4. =EXPERIEMNT sequential Technical

    ArdagnaPernici07

    1. Danilo Ardagna & Barbara Pernici
    2. Adaptive Service Composition in Flexible Processes
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V33n6(Jun 2007)pp369-384
    4. =EXPERIMENT ANNOTATED MODEL SERVICE QUALITIES PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION QoS MAIS BPEL UML XML MILP
    5. Given a process that has many steps and includes loops and branches, and each elementary step can be carried out by several rival "concrete" services.... what is the optimum selection of services to complete task?
    6. Given the same process that is partly complete.... what is the optimum way to complete the process.
    7. If the optimal solution is not good enough... how to negotiate a better one.
    8. MAIS::="MultiChannel Information Systems" project, [ http://www.mais-project.it ]
    9. MILP::model="Mixed Integer Linear Programming".
    10. Qualities = { Price, Reputation, Execution_time, availability, data_quality}.
    11. Experiments suggest the algorithms work and are feasible.

    Ardisetal96

    1. Mark A Ardis & John A Chaves & Lalita Jategaonker Jagadeesan & Peter Mataga & Carlos Puchol & Mark G StasKauskas & James Von Olnhausen
    2. A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems: Experience Report
    3. IEEE Trans Softw Eng VSE22N6(Jun 1996)pp378-389 revised from ICSE-17 1995
    4. =COMPARISON Modechart VFSM Esterel LOTOS Z SDL C telecommunications; SDL and Esterel scored well
    5. methods uncovered dangerous ambiguity in an informally stated standard

    ArdisMataga99

    1. Mark Ardis & Pete Mataga
    2. Formal Methods Through Domain engineering
    3. In [HincheyBowen99] pp315-328
    4. =EXPERIENCE FAST PROCESS DOMAIN technology transfer 5ESS Lucent
    5. Recommends an evolutionary, incremental, introduction of formal methods, that follows informal Domain analysis to identify useful abstractions.
    6. FAST::Process="Family-Oriented Abstraction, Specification, and Translation".

    Arjomandietal83

    1. Arjomandi & Fischer & Lynch
    2. Efficiency of Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Distributed Systems
    3. Jnl ACM V30n3(Jul 1983)pp449-456
    4. =THEORY non-sequential optimization

    Arnold94

    1. Robert S Arnold
    2. Software ReEngineering: A Quick History
    3. Comm ACM V37n5(May 1994)pp13-14
    4. =HISTORY maintenance

    ArnoldK94

    1. Ken Arnold
    2. Class Design for Inheritance
    3. UNIX Review V12n7(Jul 1994)pp67-72
    4. =ARTICLE DESIGN OBJECT-ORIENTED
        A is_a_special B A is_a B class A: public B{....}
      1. Liskov, Anything possible to/true of a B is possible to/true of an A as well

        A is_a_kind_of B that does V in a special way

      2. class B...{ virtual... V (....)=0 }
      3. class A: public B{..virtual... V (....){...}..}

        A has_a B class A:... { ... B name; ...} A refers_to_a B class A:...{ B* name; ...} A implemented_using B class A: private B {....} Don't!

      4. class A: protected B{....} Don't!

        A is_like_a B For some C, A and B come from a template C


    ArnoldTFuson94

    1. Thomas R Arnold & William A Fuson
    2. Testing "In A Perfect World"
    3. Commun ACM V37n9(Sep 1994)pp78-86(in Binder94)
    4. =ESSAY NONSEQUENTIAL OBJECTS SQA
        p86(Conclusions) Testing is difficult

        Good objects are difficult to write because: behaviors and components are sometimes complex + likely to be used in unimagined contexts + depend on non-OO software with nonencapsulated sideeffects + C++ object model does not expand (without care) across client-server or peer-peer environments

        Testing is easier: hierarchies reuse code - reexercise + public interfaces defined early allowing earlysimilar test drivers -> automation

        Clashes: C++ vs DCE exceptions + extant non-thread-safe libraries + thread support in C++ practically non-existant

        Reccommend: Use code analysis tools to aid code review, self-istrumenting tools to detect bugs, prepare to develop in house tools, make development environment that encourage cosistent testing.


    ArnoutMeyer03

    1. Karine Arnout & Bertrand Meyer
    2. Uncovering Hidden Contracts: The .NET Example
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V36n11(Nov 2003)pp48-
    4. =CASE-STUDY CONTRACTS ASSERTIONS ..NET LIBRARY META-DATA TOOL
    5. In ARRAY_LIST 62% of routines have implicit contracts hidden in the meta-data.

    AroraGouda93

    1. Anish Arora & Mohamed Gouda
    2. Closure and Convergence: A Foundation for Fault-Tolerant Computing
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-19n11(Nov 1993)pp1015-1027
    4. =THEORY guarded commands formal reliability
        closure is a safety property: If a fault occurs when the system is OK then (and even if faults continue) the system enters a larger set of states

        Convergence is a liveness property: If faults stop occuring then the system eventually reaches an OK state

        OK state = legal.

        atomic commitment (two-phase commit), data transfer, Byzantyne agreement, sliding window, delay insensitivity, impossible requirements, design methods.


    Arce02

    1. Ivan Arce
    2. Bug Hunting: The Seven Ways of the Security Samurai
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine Security & Privacy supplement V35(Mar/Apr 2002)pp11-15
    4. =EXPERIENCE BUGS SECURITY QUALITY RISKS
    5. Lists security bug myths in a sidebar p12. Bug hunting takes time and understanding all the implications takes longer.
    6. Lists samples of security bugs in a sidebar p13
    7. The seven ways: audit, debuggers and disassemble, network traffic analysis, blackbox tests, brute force, top-down analysis, such the Internet.
    8. Methods: lone ranger, timeboxed peer audit, assembly line, rotating teams.

    Argent-KatwalaBradleyDingle04

    1. Ashok Argent-Katwala & Jeremy T Bradley & Nicholas J Dingle
    2. Expressing Performance Requirements using Regular Expressions to specify stochastic probes over process algebra models
    3. WOSP'04 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V29n1(Jan 2004)pp49-58
    4. =DEMO Performance Regular Expressions stochastic process algebra PEPA TOOL ipc/DNAmaca

    Ariely09

    1. Dan Ariely
    2. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
    3. Harper Collins NY NY 2009
    4. =UNREAD =POPULARIZATION =EXPERIMENTS PEOPLE PSYCHOLOGY FALLACIES MARKETING BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS
    5. Web site [ http://www.predictablyirrational.com/ ]
    6. We are all a lot less rational than standard economics assumes.
    7. Online Outline [ Predictably-Irrational ]
    8. Reviewers are welcomed at [ contribute.html ]

    9. A third option can makes us choose the worse alternative. cf Arrow's Theorem.
    10. Price is often determined by habit not supply and demand.
    11. The word "Free" helps us spend more money.
    12. We will buy things or do things because we think others will buy/do it -- norms.
    13. Arousal changes things.
    14. Procrastination -- teachers should impose deadlines.
    15. We overprice what we have -- cognitive dissonance strikes again.
    16. We will waste time and money to keep our options open.
    17. Expectations color our perceptions. Stereotypes!
    18. Higher cost makes medicine etc. work better.
    19. We don't like to cheat but still cheat a little bit. We are more honest about cash than things.
    20. Making public choices can make you choose differently (in the USA) or in conformity(Hong Kong).
    21. (dick)|-Maslow!

    AriesEtal02

    1. James A Aries & Subhankar Bannerjee & Marc S Brittan & Eric Dillion & Janusz S Kowalik & John P Lixvar
    2. Capacity and Performance Analysis of Distributed Enterprise Systems
    3. Commun ACM V45n6(Jun 2002)pp100-105
    4. =EXPERIENCE Boeing RE-ENGINEERING TUNING PERFORMANCE large scaling client-server net SIMULATION
    5. Need to monitor what is going on. Need model of workload characteristics. Load testing. Need model of system.
    6. Mathematical and analytical models. Trading off time to solve vs accuracy of predictions.

    ArinzeAnandarajan03

    1. Bay Arinze & Murugan Anandarajan
    2. A Framework for Using Object-Oriented mapping methods to rapidly configure ERP Systems
    3. Commun ACM V46n2(Feb 2003)pp61-65
    4. =ADVERT EOM Object-Oriented ERP
    5. EOM::="Enterprise Object Model".

    ArisholmBriandFoyen04

    1. Erik Arisholm & Lionel C Briand & Auden Fvyen
    2. Dynamic Coupling Measurement for Object-Oriented Software
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n8(Aug 2004)pp491-506
    4. =CASESTUDY DYNAMIC RUNTIME Java COUPLING METRICS TOOL JDissect Notes interaction of inheritance and message passing: the object-level coupling is determined at runtime but class-level is static (and different).
    5. Figure 2, p494 is UML Metamodel of classes, methods, objects, etc.. Studied Velocity open source in Apache Jakarta Project. 17 versions 408 class es, 17KLOC, 65 inheritance relation, 149 methods overridden.
    6. Average dynamic import and export couplings are always equal. Principle components confirm that dynamic coupling is not correlated with stat ic metrics.
    7. Regression of change proneness on SLOC and each proposed metric.
    8. |-the dynamic export coupling metrics predict change proneness.
    9. Similar to work done on Smalltalk.
    10. Export coupling occurs when one method is called by another one.
    11. Changes come from calls

    ArisholmBriandHoveLabiche06

    1. Erik Arisholm & Lionel C Briand & Siw Elisabeth Hove & Yvan Labiche
    2. The impact of UML Documentation on Software Maintenance: an Experimental Evaluation
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V32n6(Jun 2006)pp365-381
    4. =EXPERIMENT UML MAINTENANCE DOCUMENTATION TOOLS TAO Visio Java Oslo Ottawa
    5. UML documentation helps students to correctly make complex changes in code.
    6. It helps students make complex changers faster but the total time (including updating the diagrams was longer.
    7. Some students who had no UML docs drew their own on difficult tasks.
    8. Some students given UML ignored it on some tasks.
    9. Students without the UML docs where more likely to say that they were out of practice with Java and had problems grasping the whole picture.
    10. Previous experiment [ ArisholmSjoberg04 ]

    ArisholmSjoberg04

    1. Erik Arisholm & Dag I J Sjoberg
    2. Evaluating the Effect of a delegate versus centralized Control Style on the maintainability of Object-Oriented Software
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n8(Aug 2004)pp521-534
    4. =EXPERIMENT EVOLUTION MAINTENANCE Object-Oriented MODULES Expert REALITY vs novice Java SESE RDD Responsibility GLM ANOVA
    5. Comparison of the correctness and effort for maintaining two OO designs for the Coffee-Machine problem from OOPSLA'97 OO. Compared consultants(3 levels: junior, intermediate, senior) and Students(Ugrad vs Grad).
    6. Two designs: one centralizes most of the responsibilities into a FrontPanel object. The decentralized design models ideas like product, ingredient, recipe and spreads the functionality over 12 modules.
    7. Overall correctness on 4 tasks: 59%, correctness increases with expertise, centralized(69%) done correctly more often than decentralized(50%)!
    8. Effort drops with expertise for students, but for consultants the effort on decentralized design drops with expertise and increases for the centralized.

    ArisholmEtAl07

    1. Erik Arisholm & Hans Gallis & Tore Dyba & Dag I K Sjoberg
    2. Evaluating Pair Programming with respect to System Complexity and Progrmmer Expertise
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V33n2(Jan 2007)pp65-86
    4. =EXPERIMENT TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE PAIR PROGRAMMING EXPERTISE STYLE Java
    5. Well designed experiment testes whether pairs are more productive than programmers working alone.
    6. Based on previously used experimental code [ ArisholmSjoberg04 ]
    7. On average there is a slight bdecrease in the time and an increase in the likelihood of a correct fix -- but the effort(2 people vs 1person) is 80% higher.
    8. With less experienced programmers pairs are 70%more likely to produce correct code it takes them a little longer.
    9. Intermediate programmers get the best reduction in time 30%.
    10. Experience programmers produce less correct code but do bit a little faster.
    11. All these effects are moderated as the code switches style from a centralized control design to a distributed control Object-Oriented design.

    ArlowNeustadt04

    1. J Arlow & I Neustadt
    2. Enterprise patterns and MDA: Building Better Software with Archetype Patterns and UML
    3. Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co, Inc., Redwood City, CA, 2003. CR 0412-1461.
    4. =HANDBOOK COMMERCIAL ORGANISATION LITERATE UML MODELS MDA PCL archetype pleomorph
    5. MDA::OMG="Model Driven Architecture", using tools to convert models directly to code.
    6. PCL::=" Pattern Configuration Language".
    7. archetype::= "a class, attribute, operation, or relationship that appears in many applications"
    8. ArlowNeustadt04_pattern::= "A collection of collaborating archetypes", optional parts shown by the <<o>> stereotype. Names: Party, Party relationship, Customer Relations Management(CRM), Product, Inventory, Order, Quantity, Money, Rule.
    9. pleomorph::= " distinct patterns of archetypes in different enterprises".

    Armour00

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. The Case for a new business model
    3. Commun ACM V43n8(Aug 2000)pp11-22
    4. =IDEA software is a medium for storing DATA
    5. 5_media:=(DNA, brains, hardware/tools, books, software).
    6. We need paraphrenalia to allow us to embed knowledge in software so that it can be changed and used.
    7. workplace and process should help acquire knowledge.
    8. 1. domain knowledge, 2. how to acquire knowledge, 3. how to structure it for embedding in software. Most developers will not need knowledge of software itself.
    9. failure also leads to knowledge
    10. account for knowledge as an asset

    Armour00b

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. The Five Orders of Ignorance
    3. Commun ACM V43n10(Oct 2000)pp17-20
    4. =ESSAY TECHNICAL CODE contains KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES METHODS
    5. Tight hacked code does not contain disproven ex-knowlege.
    6. For n:0..4, n.OI := n.th Order Ignorance.
    7. 0.OI = demonstrable knowledge.
    8. 1.OI = Know that I don't know.
    9. 2.OI = I don't Know that I don't know.
    10. 3.OI = I don't know how to uncover 2.OI.
    11. 4.OI = I don't know about the OI.
    12. Methods and processes give usxquestions not answers.

    Armour01

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. The Laws of Software Process
    3. Commun ACM V44n1(Jan 2001)pp15-
    4. =ESSAY PROCESSES CMM IGNORANCE
    5. 5 orders of ignorance [Armour00b]
    6. Why developing processes is difficult.
    7. One size doesn't fit all. Fit process to situation. Experimental lab areas. Term limits. Measure value.

    Armour01b

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. Matching Process to Types of Teams
    3. Commun ACM V44n7(Jul 2001)pp21-23
    4. =ESSAY ONESIZE PROCESS TEAM PEOPLE
    5. One size does not fit all -- a creative team does not want a repeatable product!
    6. Four kinds of team:=( tactical, problem-solving, creative, Learning).
    7. Use "orders of Ignorance".. [Armour00b]

    Armour02

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. The Spiritual Life of Projects
    3. Commun ACM V45n1(Jan 2002)pp11-14
    4. =ESSAY PEOPLE MANAGEMENT TEAM
    5. (FatherJim)|-4 components of humanity: physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual.
    6. need: explicit or implicit code of conduct, higher purpose, contributing values to someone's life, morale, mutual support, leadership by creating an environment where people do their best, caring for weaker members of the team.

    Armour02b

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. Ten Unmyths of Project estimation
    3. Commun ACM V45n11(Nov 2002)pp15-18
    4. =ESSAY ESTIMATION QUALITIES
    5. |-What we don't know is a major source of error in estimation and defects in code.
    6. |-Sometimes we don't even know that we are missing knowledge.
    7. |-Estimates are inaccurate.
    8. |-don't estimate dates: estimate the probability of an event by that date.
    9. |-estimates are not commitments.
    10. |-time is only roughly defendant on size.
    11. |-Historical data may be the best data, but it is not good enough to predict productivity.
    12. |-Productivity works for buildings and things but not for knowledge.
    13. |-LOC/FP does not measure knowledge we don't have.
    14. |-Brook's Law.
    15. |-No amount of resources can guarantee absence of defects.

    Armour04

    1. Phillip Armour
    2. When Executives Code
    3. Commun ACM V47n1(Jan 2004)pp19-22
    4. =EXPERIENCE PEOPLE vs PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
    5. Executives on a 3 day course behave like amateur programmers on a programming project and emerge sadder but wiser.
    6. The course project included unexpected system failure, unrealistic deadlines, and deliberately intrusive management.
    7. Executives lost track of the goals of the project in the joys of hacking code!
    8. Never produced working system.

    Armour04a

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. Not-Defect: the Mature Discipline of Testing
    3. Commun ACM V47n10(Oct 2004)pp15-18
    4. =ESSAY TESTING IGNORANCE
    5. Testing is about discovering what we don't know.

    Armour03

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. The laws of Software Process: A New model for the production and management of software
    3. Auerbach Boston MA 2003 ISBN 0849314895 CR 0502-0217
    4. =THEORY IGNORANCE PEOPLE METHODS
    5. Software development as a process of discovering and recording knowledge.
    6. Based on .Lookup Armour

    Armour06

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. Counting Boulders and Measuring Mountains
    3. Commun ACM V49n1(Jan 2006)pp17-20
    4. =ANALOGY ESTIMATION PLANNING Project Management WBS COCOMO SLIM-Estimate Everest
    5. Argues that you don't get a good estimate of the size of a mountain by estimating the rocks that make it up and adding up the numbers.
    6. WBS::="Work Breakdown Structure", count the rocks in the mountain.
    7. Executives then ask for a better estimate/plan.
    8. Scope-based implementation is more like using surveying tools and techniques to measure the mountain.
    9. Use the scope of the project to estimate final system size.
    10. Time depends on a power of system size.
    11. Since scope is uncertain and the estimates of size based on a given scope add uncertainty, one generates effort estimates that have a range of values.
    12. Quantify the uncertainties!
    13. No discussion of the agile approach (start climbing the mountain first, and change your estimates as you climb, etc.)

    Armour06b

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. Software: hard data
    3. Commun ACM V49n9(Sep 2006)pp15-17
    4. =EXPERIENCES statistics Information technology projects
    5. Software enacts knowledge about many domains with no commonality.
    6. Quotes data from "QSM".
    7. Small teams succeed more than large ones.
    8. Typical projects have fewer than 7 people, last < 8 months, use COBOL, 9KLOC.
    9. More projects overlap phases these days.
    10. Best projects are good accross the board: effort, estimate, duration,...
    11. Big LOC projects are more productive but why?

    Armour07

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. Agile . . . And Offshore
    3. Commun ACM V50n1(Jan 2007)pp13-14
    4. =INTERVIEW AGILE DISTRIBUTED PEOPLE ECONOMICS TOOLS WEB/NET GeneerAginity Ukraine Mantis Subversion Cruise control Ncover simian
    5. Agile Geneer misjudged .com crash 2000-2002 & bank foreclosed.
    6. Aginity offshore development (Evanston+Kiev) based on personal contact, shared achitecture, patterns, frameworks, language, & vocabulary.
    7. Stories, iterations, risk provocation.
    8. Open source groupware tools generate management data via web spaces.

    Armour07a

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. Mortallity Play
    3. Commun ACM V50n3(Map 2007)pp-
    4. =ANECDOTE INSURANCE SOFTWARE ESTIMATION
    5. Insurance depends on estimating precisely the chances of bad things happening...
    6. But this (anon) company had failed to figure out the chance of four projects failing.
    7. Armour figured each had a 1/5 chance, so all four at about 1/200 for the complete set.
    8. They used classic project planning with task breakdown etc...
    9. Conclusion: don't just ask how long a project will take, ask what is the chanace that it will be complete by the deadline.

    Armour07b

    1. Philip G Armour
    2. Twenty Percent
    3. Commun ACM V50n6(Jun 2007)pp21-23
    4. =IDEA ESTIMATION OPTIMISTIC RISKS DEATHMARCH
    5. A good 50% estimate -- allowing for reasonable problems -- is negotiated down to one that has a 20% of being met, by ignoring the risks.
    6. Optimism reduces the resources requested at the price of increasing the probability of running out of resources.
    7. See [Spinellis07a] and [DEATHMARCH]

    Armour08

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. The inaccurate conception
    3. Commun ACM V51n3(Mar 2008)pp13-16
    4. =ESSAY ESTIMATION UNCERTAINTY LIFECYCLE
    5. Cone_of_uncertainty::=map[t:time]([1/f(t) .. f(t)]* actual ), for some decreasing function f. "Describes how estimates get more accurate as a project proceeds". At that start of new product estimates are between [0.25 .. 4.0] times the actual value. Tightens as uncertainties are removed.
    6. Express estimates as a distribution mapping qualities to probability of success. S shaped curve.
    7. commitment is not an estimate.

    Armour09

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. The Business of Software: The Ontology of Paper
    3. Commun ACM V52n1(Jan 2009)pp23-24 [ 1435417.1435427 ]
    4. =ESSAY DOCUMENTATION PAPER vs
    5. Claims that the industrial revolution did not occur until steam engines were used to create steam engines.
    6. Claims that current software technology tends to reproduce the defects of paper-based artifacts.
    7. Describes the properties of paper artifacts: difficult to link artifacts, not executable, not easily verifiable, serial access, imposes a hierarchical structure, places information within a linear context, inherently single-tasking, ...
    8. Even hypertext does not relax these constraints.
    9. Claims that older systems fitted the paper model well.
    10. New systems need the external linkages and executability of software.

    Armour09a

    1. Phillip G Armour
    2. the business of software: the cliche defence
    3. Commun ACM V52n7(Jul 2009)pp34-36 [ 1538788.1538802 ]
    4. =ESSAY PEOPLE MANAGERS BUZZ PHRASES
    5. Do it right the first time. But.... Quote: "much of the business of software involves the discovery of what we are supposed to be doing".
    6. Work smarter not harder.
    7. Quality is the most important thing. But.... Which quality?
    8. Our customers are the most important thing. But.... Which customers? What about future extensions and the people who work on them?
    9. Our people are the most important thing. But... are they supported?

    Arms01

    1. Willian Y Arms
    2. Uniform Resource Names: Handles, PURLs, and Digital Object Identifiers
    3. Commun ACM V44n5(May 2001)p68
    4. =HISTORY WEB/NET URL RFC1737 URN CNRI DOI IDF
    5. PURL::= "Persistent URL".

    Armstrong06

    1. Deborah J. Armstrong
    2. The Quarks of Object-Oriented Development
    3. Commun ACM V49n2(Feb 2006)pp123-128
    4. =SURVEY OBJECTS TECHNICAL ONTOLOGY GLOSSARY TAXONOMY
    5. Two "constructs": Structure and Behavior.
    6. Under Structure: Abstraction, Class, Encapsulation, Inheritance, Object.
    7. Under Behavior: Message Passing, Method, Polymorphism.
    8. Table 3 includes definitions of the concepts.

    Armstrong01

    1. Rob Armstrong
    2. Seven Steps to Optimizing Data Warehouse Performance
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V34n12(Dec 2001)pp76-79
    4. =ADVERT PERFORMANCE OLAP DATA WAREHOUSE
    5. Good for OLTP is bad for OLAP. Cf SSADM Physical design control in 1980's.
    6. steps: use relational OLTP data, implement special views via SQL, add indices, store more summaries, denormalize, denormalize irrationally, export data.
    7. Cycle: define requirement, understand benefits, determine needed data, find lowest step to get performance, calculate costs, implement or redefine requirements.

    ArrechederaMatteo00

    1. Hector Arrechedera & Alfredo Matteo
    2. How to get started with Design Patterns
    3. Proc SCI/ISAS2000 VII pp47-52 [SCI00]
    4. =EXPERIENCE EDUCATION OBJECT-ORIENTED PATTERNS

    ArthorneLaffra04

    1. John Arthorne & Chris Laffra
    2. Official Eclipse 3.0 FAQs
    3. Addison Wesley Pro BostonMA 2004 ISBN 0321268385 CR 0605-0450 [ http://www.eclipse.org ]
    4. =UNREAD =MANUAL Eclipse PLUGIN Java IDE SWT [click here [socket symbol] if you can fill this hole]

    Arthur92

    1. Lowell Jay Arthur
    2. Rapid Evolutionary development: requirements, prototyping and software creation
    3. John Wiley& Son NYNY 1992 ISBN 0-471-53633 CR 9211-0860 QA76.76.D47A78
    4. =HANDBOOK EVOLUTION REQUIREMENTS PROTOTYPES

    Arthur97

    1. Lowell Jay Arthur
    2. Quantum Improvements in Software QUALITY
    3. Commun ACM V40n6(Jun 1997)pp46-52
    4. =EXPERIENCE PEOPLE PROCES QUALITY MODULES METRIC CYCLOMATIC PARETO
    5. focus on particular results and people. Give practical "accelerated" training(story+demonstrations+discuss application).
    6. Laws: 20% of the code has 80% of the errors. 20% of the code requires 80% of the mods. Keep cyclomatic complexity of modules between 5 and 15.

    ArthurGronerHayhurstHolloway99

    1. James D Arthur & Markus D Gr"oner & Kelly J Hayhurst & C Michael Holloway
    2. Evaluating the effectiveness of independent verification and validation
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V32n10(Oct 1999)pp79-83
    4. =EXPERIMENT V&V SEES MER TAPs
    5. IV&V beneficial: cost of errors reduced

    Asaravala03

    1. Amit Asaravala
    2. All by themselves
    3. Software Development Magazine V11n3(Mar 2003)pp38-41
    4. =HISTORY AGENTS AI Clippy metadata semantic web XML RDF ontology DAML+OIL LOGIC
    5. Agents (minimally) observe an environment and react to changes by interacting with the environment -- and other agents.
    6. Agents either need a shared ontology or a way to share ontologies and metadata.
    7. RDF::XML_DTD="Resource Description Framework", indicates relationships between subjects, predicates and objects.

    Asaravala04

    1. Amit Asaravala
    2. Project Management, Evo Style
    3. Software Development -- People and Projects newsletter(Nov 2004)
    4. =ARTICLE AGILE EVOLUTIONARY PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1960s ITERATIVE Evo PDCA
    5. Many small cycles each with Planning, Checking, Doing, and Acting -- -- --(PDCA)
    6. Acting changes the plans...
    7. See also "Evolutionary Project Management Methods," by Niels Malotaux [ http://click.sd.email-publisher.com/maacOZiabbnXPbdngFsb/ ] [pdf] and "How Quality Is Assured by Evolutionary Methods," by Niels Malotaux [ http://click.sd.email-publisher.com/maacOZiabbnXQbdngFsb/ ] [pdf].

    AsarinCaspiMaler02

    1. Eugene Asarin & Paul Caspi & Oded Maler
    2. Timed Regular Expressions
    3. J. ACM V49n2(Mar 2002)pp172-206
    4. =THEORY TIMING REGULAR EXPRESSIONS STRINGS FSM LANGUAGES KLEENE BUCHI NONSEQUENTIAL
    5. When time is important as well as sequence, then timed automata recognize languages defined by extended regular expressions: Intersection and relabelling have to be added to union/sequence/closure.
    6. Definition is via the free merge of a Time monoid and an Event monoid.

    Ashman00

    1. H L Ashman <hla@cs.nott.ac.uk>
    2. Relations Modeling Sets of Hypermedia Links and Navigation
    3. Computer Journal V43n5( 2000)pp345-363
    4. =THEORY WWW/NET HYPERTEXT

    AslesonSchutta05

    1. Ryan Asleson & Nathaniel T Schutta
    2. Foundations of Ajax (foundation)
    3. Apress Berkeley CA 2005 ISBN 159059823 CR 0611-1104
    4. =UNREAD Web/NET Javascript XML Ajax
    5. Compare with rival Atlas [SmithK06] from Microsoft.

    Aslett91

    1. M J Aslett(Ed)(GEC Marconi UK)
    2. A knowledge based approach to Software development: ESPRIT project ASPIS
    3. North-Holland Amsterdam Netherlands 1991 ISBN 0-444-88886-1 CR9310-0740
    4. =UNREAD KNOWLEDGE ASPIS

    AstesianoReggioRicca08

    1. Egidio Astesiano & Gianna Reggio & Filippo Ricca
    2. Modeling Business with a UML-based Rigorous Software Development Approach
    3. Montanari Festschrift pp261-277 [DeganoEtAl08]
    4. =DEMO UML BUSINESS MODELING MARS SOA REALITIES SYSTEMS ORGANIZATION OCL
    5. BM::discipline="Business Modeling".
    6. Use multiple UML2 views of business: Static + Organization + Business Process + Data.
    7. Model business processes in the context of other business processes.
    8. Model business entities and organization.
    9. Model activities precisely.
    10. Proposes stereotypes: <<A>> for autonomous acts, <<bw>> for business worker, <<bo>> for business objects, <<ext>> external entities, <<ou>> organizational units. <<bp>> business process "use case". <<large>> high level cases.

    AstleySturmanAghar01

    1. Mark Astley & Daniel Sturman & Gul Aghar
    2. Customizable middleware for modular distributed software
    3. Commun ACM V44n5(May 2001)pp99-107
    4. =DEMO MODULES ARCHITECTURE WWW/NET NONSEQUENTIAL QUALITIES REFLECTION LANGUAGE ACTORS
    5. separate concerns of application (PURPOSES) from nonfunctional requirements (policies) like security and atomicity.
    6. Express policies(requirements) explicitly in the software.
    7. Policies are to protocols as interfaces are to implementations.
    8. DIL::= "Distributed Interaction Language", describes a protocol in terms of roles and their responses to events. Roles are formal parameters.
    9. Multiple policies achieved by stacking protocols with one object playing one or more roles in several protocols.
    10. ?? Aliasing ?

    Astrachan91

    1. Owen Astrachan
    2. Pictures as Invariants
    3. SIGCSE Bulletin V23n1(Mar 1991)pp112-118
    4. =DEMO LOGIC TECHNICAL GRAPHIC

    Asuaga01

    1. Ana Asuaga
    2. Enginering a New society
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V34n6(Jun 2001)pp104+102-103-
    4. =ESSAY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ETHICS
    5. Need for collaboration and listening in engineering and in society.

    AthanasSilverman93

    1. Peter M Athanas & Harvey F Silverman
    2. Processor Reconfiguration Through Instruction-Set Metamorphosis
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V26n3(Mar 1993)pp11-20
    4. =DEMO DFDs HARDWARE
    5. DFDs on pages 15-16 are called DFGs

    AtkinsBallGravesMockus02

    1. David L Atkins & Thomas Ball & Todd L Graves & Audris Mockus
    2. Using Version Control Data to evaluate the Impact of Software Tools: A Case Study of the Version editor(VE)
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n7(Jul 2002)pp625-637
    4. =EMPIRICAL TECHNICAL TOOL EVALUATION
    5. |-(1) : tools help developers determine and/or carry out modifications in existing documents.
    6. |-(2) : The change history of such documents can be used to estimate the effort.
    7. (1, 2)|-record tools used and relate to monitored data.
    8. Tool designed to hide C++ #ifdefs etc had a significant and good effect on productivity.

    AtkinsonKuhne03

    1. Colin Atkinson & Thomas K"uhne
    2. Aspect-Oriented Development with Stratified Frameworks
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n1(Jan/Feb 2003)pp81-89
    4. =IDEA DESIGN ASPECTS AOP HIERARCHY ARCHITECTURE PATTERNS
    5. Refine labelled interactions to collaborations of objects. Labels name concerns and indicate the collaboration and/or more detailed concerns.
    6. Concerns include coordination, distribution, persistence, security, recovery, undo, paradigms

    AtleeBuckley96

    1. Joanne M Atlee & Michael A Buckley
    2. A logic-Model Semantics for SCR Software Requirements
    3. Proc 1996 Int Symposium on Software Testing & Analysis(ISSTA) & ACM SIGSOFT SENotes V21n3(May 1996)pp280-292
    4. =IDEA LOGIC SCR REQUIREMENTS TABULAR
    5. SCR::="Software Cost Reduction"
    6. SCR Statecharts RSML all share conditioned-event-driven reactive systems. demos analytical requirements temporal logic model and tool SMV::="Symbolic Model Verifier". CTL::=Computational Tree Logic
    7. See CORE [WilliamsL94] [HeimdahlLeveson96]

    Atwood07

    1. Jeff Atwood
    2. The coming Software Patent Apocalpse
    3. Coding Horror (Jul ?? 2007) [ 000902.html ]
    4. =ESSAY LEGAL PATENT ARMS RACE Microsoft Knuth

    Atwood08

    1. Jeff Atwood
    2. Coding: It's just writing
    3. coding horror nov10th [ 001184.html ]
    4. =ESSAY CODING STYLE STRUNK LITERATE KNUTH

    Atwood09?

    1. Jeff Atwood
    2. software engineering dead?
    3. coding horror blog (jul 18 2007) [ 001288.html ]
    4. =ESSAY CONTROL PLANNING ENGINEERING CRAFT
    5. surprised by [DeMarco09]
    6. Quote
        And yet, it's also a release. It's as if a crushing weight has been lifted from my chest. I can publicly acknowledge what I've slowly, gradually realized over the last 5 to 10 years of my career as a software developer: what we do is craftsmanship, not engineering. And I can say this proudly, unashamedly, with nary a shred of self-doubt.

    Atwood09b

    1. Jeff Atwood
    2. COBOL: Everywhere and Nowhere
    3. Coding Horror (Aug 9 2009) [ 001294.html ]
    4. =BLOG COBOL COBOL.NET EXAMPLE

    AueBreu94

    1. Alfred Aue & Michael Breu
    2. Distributed Information Systems: An Advanced Methodology
    3. IEEE trans on Soft Eng vSE-20n8(Aug 1994)pp594-605
    4. =ADVERT BOS(Bull + Olivetti & Siemens-Nixdorf) ENGINEERING method REQUIREMENTS LIFECYCLE ERD
    5. Based on Merise/Omega
    6. MOis
    7. GRAPES. Relaxed water fall model. Documents can be drafted
    8. approved and then baseline. The draft versions "look ahead" to the future options.

    AugustinePayneSencindiverWoodcock05

    1. Sanjiv Augustine & Bob Payne & Fred Sencindiver & Susan Woodcock
    2. Agile Project Management: Steering from the edges.
    3. Commun ACM V48n12(Dec 2005)pp85-89
    4. =ADVERT AGILE PROJECT MANAGEMENT APM COMPLEXITY XP
    5. APM::= "Agile Project Management".
    6. Agile methods rescue a medium sized project in 2002. Lists: 6 practices, 7 changes, 6 new activities, 6 innovations, 7 difficulties.
    7. sidebar p87 describes complex adaptive systems ( CAS ).

    Austin99

    1. Robert D Austin
    2. The Phantom Menace
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V16n5(Sep/Oct 1999)pp15-18
    4. =EXPERIENCE PROCESSES MANAGEMENT
    5. superstars, dynamic requirements, parallelism, theatre

    AustinDevin03

    1. Rob Austin & Lee Devin
    2. Beyond Requirements: software Making as Art
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n1(Jan/Feb 2003)pp93-95
    4. =ESSAY REQUIREMENTS FORMAL vs AGILE PURPOSES QUALITIES EVOLUTION ITERATION
    5. Analogy with producing a play. The requirements are like a script. But a great performance goes beyond the script by iteration, creation, and improvisation. So great software will go beyond the predicted requirements using creativity, iteration, and improvisation.

    Autebert99

    1. Jean-Michel Autebert
    2. Some Results about Centralized PC grammar systems
    3. Theor Comput Sci V215n1/2(Feb 28 1999)pp383-398
    4. =THEORY NONSEQUENTIAL GRAMMAR LANGUAGES THEORY
    5. PC:= Parallel communicating context free.
    6. Grammars generate query symbols that is a non-terminal in another grammar.
    7. Centralised:@PC=only one grammar inserts queries.

    AvisonFitzgerald03

    1. David E Avison & Guy Fitzgerald
    2. Where Now for development methodologies
    3. Commun ACM V46n1(Jan 2003)pp79-
    4. =HISTORY METHODS NONE SDLC ONE-SIZE -> DIVERSITY
    5. methods became mixtures of ( structured, data-oriented, prototyping, Object-Oriented, participative, strategic, Systems) methods.
    6. Most were local to the organization even if based on another one.
    7. web related return to 1960's ad hocism?

    AvisonGregorWilson06

    1. David Avison & Shirley Gregor & David Wilson
    2. Managerial IT Unconsciousness
    3. Commun ACM V49n7(Jul 2006)pp89-93
    4. =EXPERIENCES RISKS 3 AUSTRALIAN FAILURES PEOPLE RMIT ERP PeopleSoft Sidney Water One.Tel
    5. All three we catastrophic (or near catastrophes) for stake holders. One bankruptcy.
    6. 3 different types of business: university, utility, .com telephones
    7. Risk factors
      1. Over-complex/ambitious or over-integrated systems.
      2. Clueless management -- Poor governance -- no checks on progress and quality.
      3. Inexperienced or powerless experts with no clout -- warnings ignored.
      4. Ignoring the critical importance of getting money in: billing systems!

    AvisonYoung07

    1. David Avison & Terry Young
    2. Time to rethink health care and ICT
    3. Commun ACM V50n6(Jun 2007)pp69-74
    4. =SURVEY UK HEALTH RISKS PEOPLE CULTURE FACE-TO-FACE VS ERP NPfIT RISP CSCI372
    5. Describes and analyses the history of health systems not meeting their goals and/or failing to serve the stake holders
    6. NPiFT::UK.NHS="The National Program for Information Technology".
    7. Notes that best practices include understanding and supporting the culture of the organization.
    8. Notes that health system rely on complex face-to-face communication.
    9. Claims this is being ignored in NPfIT.

    AvizienisBall87

    1. Algirdas Avizienis & Danforth E Ball
    2. On the Achievement of a Dependable and Fault-Tolerant Air Traffic Control System
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V20n2 (Feb 1987)pp63-71
    4. =EXPERIENCE FAA AAS minimize RISKS
    5. Compare with the later TCAS.

    Avruninetal91

    1. George S Avrunin & Ugo A. Buy & James C Corbett & Laura K Dillon and Jack C Wileden
    2. Automated Analysis of Concurrent Systems With the Constrained Expression Toolset
    3. IEEE SE-V17n11(Nov 1991)pp1204-1222 CR9303-0149
    4. =DEMO TOOL NONSEQUENTIAL PREDICTION PROOF
    5. regular expressions plus interleaving to predict behaviors and problems

    AycockHorspool01

    1. John Aycock & R Nigel Horspool
    2. Schroedinger's Token
    3. Software - Practice & Experience V31n8(10 Jul 2001)pp803-814
    4. =IDEA LEXICAL PARSING LANGUAGES NONDETERMINISM
    5. During lexical analysis a token can be left in a superposition of several types until the parser looks into the token and resolves it.
    6. IF IF = THEN THEN THEN =IF
    7. dummy token type: SCHRODINGER

    AyewahEtAl08

    1. Nathaniel Ayewah & William Pugh & David Hovemeyer & J David Morgenthaler & John Penix
    2. Using Static Analysis to Find Bugs
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V25n5(Sep/Oct 2008)pp22-29
    4. =EXPERIENCE Google =SURVEY OPEN SOURCE TOOL FindBugs Java TECHNICAL QUALITY Mondrian
    5. A free static analysis tool finds real defects in real code ... Plus some false positives -- but misses some bugs.
    6. Survey of users shows it to be useful.

    BaaderNipkow98

    1. Franz Baader & Tobias Nipkow
    2. Term rewriting and all that
    3. Cambridge U Press NY NY 1998 ISBN 0-521-77920-0 CR0002-0072
    4. =THEORY MATH

    Baber82

    1. Robert Laurence Baber
    2. Software Reflected: the socially responsible programming of our computers
    3. North Holland NY NY 1982 QA76.6.B26
    4. =TEXTBOOK USER

    Baber85

    1. Robert L Baber
    2. I/O Statements in Higher Programming Languages: Unnecessary & Undesirable(Open Channel)
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V18n6(Jun 1985)p112
    4. =HARMFUL input/output LANGUAGES
    5. harmful to split secondary from primary memory

    BabarGorton09

    1. Muhammad Ali Babar & Ian Gorton
    2. Software Architecture Review: The State of Practice
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V42n7(Jul 2009)pp27-32
    4. =POLL 235 ENTERPRISES SQA ARCHITECTURE MODELS INSPECTION WALKTHROUGH
    5. Excellent summary of ways of ensuring design quality and addressing architectural concerns -- not all of them popular.
    6. Common techniques: Scenarios, Experience, and prototyping. Less common: check lists, metrics, simulation, questionaires, mathematics
    7. Documenting architectures: modeling notations, views, features, assumptions and constraints, ...
    8. Inputs: (commonest first) requirements, descriptions, business drivers, standards, ...
    9. Stakeholders -- various

    Babinetal91

    1. Gilbert Babin & Francois Lustman & Peretz Shoval
    2. Specification and Design of Transactions in Informations Systems: A Formal Approach
    3. IEEE SE-V17n8(Aug 1991)pp815-829
    4. CR9303-0181
    5. QV Lustman94
    6. dataflows vs control_data_flows & FSM

    Bach95

    1. James Bach
    2. Enough about process: What we need are heroes
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V12n2(Mar 1995)pp96-98+replies IEEE Software Magazine V12n3(May 1995)p5-7 [Bach9?]
        "Heroism means going beyond the borders of the known world and returning with new knowledge or wealth[...]sustainable, healthy sort of heroism requires judgement to know how much commitmment and risk is right for the situation. The movement towards process in our industry is an understandable reaction against pathological heroism: heroism for its own sake, in which overcommitment and uncontrolled risk-taking is the norm."

        p97: "The 'cowboy' or 'big magic' model. In this view, gifted people create software through apparent magical means, with no particular guidance or support"

        Can integrate process and heroism by taking a people centred view and seeing software production as a dynamic, complex, etc. system for solving problems.

        Reply: John Henry or Pecos Bill, trial by cold pizza,...


    Bach97

    1. James Bach
    2. Good Enough Quality: Beyond the Buzzword
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V30n8(Aug 1997)pp96-98
    4. =ESSAY QUALITY ECONMICS MS-PROCESS
    5. rational choices of what to fix now
    6. GEQ::="Good Enough Quality"

    Bach9?

    1. James Bach
    2. Process Evolution in a Mad World
    3. Borland International Internal Report (100 Borland Way Scots Valley CA 96066) [Bach95]
        (for chaos)Leadership->Risk Management->Process Control(for order)

        Risk management - prevent failure vs Goals - maximize success

         Risk{identification<=>planning<=>resolution}.
                 V^             V^            V^
         Goal setting<=>Task Planning<=> Task completion

        Risk based evolution.

      1. (riskbased1): absolutely necessary - to handle perceived risk
      2. (riskbased2): make it tolerant
      3. (riskbased3): small informal experiments first
      4. (riskbased4): frequent evaluation
      5. (riskbased5): find a champion
      6. (riskbased6): work with the team
      7. (riskbased7): mentor, not a manuaal
      8. (riskbased8): "formalize" only when necessary
      9. Example Bug reviews. 50..100 bugs per day. 30 bugs an hour.

    BachleKirchberg07

    1. Michael Bachle & Pauk Kirchberg
    2. Ruby on Rails
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V24n6(Nov/Dec 2007)pp105-108
    4. =DEMO RUBY ROR TECHNICAL WEB PLATFORM RAPID PROTOTYPING MVC
    5. Also compares with Apache Struts, Tapestry, Cocoon, and ASP.NET

    Bachman69

    1. Charles Bachman
    2. Data Structure Diagrams
    3. Data Base Journal ACM SIGDBP v1 n2 (?? 1969)pp4-10
    4. =DEMO GRAPHIC DATA Reality

    Bachman73

    1. Charles Bachman
    2. The Programmer as Navigator
    3. Commun ACM v16 n11 Nov73 pp653-658
    4. =ESSAY data

    Bachman92

    1. Charlie Bachman
    2. New Apps Must be Model-Driven:Business Needs Steer Changes to Tech Model
    3. Software Magazine Debate (Mar 1992)p52

    Backhouseetal89

    1. Roland Backhouse & Paul Chisholm & Grant Malcolm & Erik Saaman
    2. Do-it-yourself Type Theory
    3. Formal Aspects Comput V1n1 (Jan-Mar 1989)pp19-84
    4. =theory structures Reality

    BaclawskiIndurkhya94

    1. Kenneth Baclawski & Bipin Indurkhya
    2. The Notion of Inheritance in object-oriented programming(Letter)
    3. Commun ACM V37n9(Sep 1994)pp118-119

      [Grosberg93] [ArnoldK94] (C++ advice)


        refers to debate over meaning of inheritance:
      1. Abrahams's 91 letter "Subject: Objectivism"
      2. Lalonde & Pugh JOOP 91 "subclassing <> subtyping <> is-a"
      3. Tesler's 91 CACM letter
      4. Wegner 80 pages in 90 OOPS messenger
      5. Winkler 92 letter refers to POV vs COV in Winkler's letter Quotes Wegner 90
      6. POV = Physical & COV = Conceptual Piaget: Child constructs idea of object permanence from its own actions on the objects.

        Class of objects without actions<>class of objects with some actions.

        Failure to find epistomological foundations of the IS-A link - six different generic-generic and four kinds of generic-individual relation

        "The point here is that the concepts in the real world, which programs attempt to model, do not come in neatly packaged hierarchies." (cf GoldsteinAlger92)

        "There are no standard conceptual hierachies. Given a domain and a specific PURPOSE, certain concept hierarchies would be clearly preferable than others, but such policy decisions are best left to the USER of the programming language[...] What a PL provides is a set of mechanisms [...] restrict what can be implemented[but] they do not themselves validate some view of inheritance or other[...]" these are also just implemented concepts and do not not have a universal objective meaning....upto the designers to choose suitable mechanisms.


    BaeckerMarcus90

    1. R M Baeker & A Marcus
    2. Human Factors and typography for More Readable Programs
    3. ACM Press 1990
    4. Readability QUALITY Readability Technical

    Baetan90

    1. J C M Baetan(Ed)
    2. Applications of Process Algebra
    3. Cambridge U Press Cambridge UK & NY NY 1990
    4. =Theory nonsequential algebra CSP CCS ACP
      1. problem with informal semantics in POOL pp172-236(Frits W Vaandrager)
      2. fairness and liveness [p13 of Baetan90 by J A Bergstra &J W Kop]
      3. ultrametric [p9 of Baetan90 by J A Bergstra &J W Kop] :. all guarded recursion equations without abstraction have a unique solution.
      4. process creation can be simulated. pp81-88 of Baetan90 by J A Bergstra )
      5. Process Algebra is a better model than CSP/CCS for concurrency.
      6. Relations are a basic process algebra pp1-22(J A Bergstra &J W Kop) but without <*>

    Baetan08

    1. Joe C M Baetan
    2. Calculating with Automata
    3. Montanari Festschrift [DeganoEtAl08] pp746-756
    4. =EDUCATION THEORY ALGEBRA EQUATIONS AUTOMATA GRAMMARS KLEENE REGULAR EXPRESSIONS
    5. Demonstrates that most of standard theory can be taught using equations.

    BaierHaverkortHermansKatoen03

    1. Christel Baier & Boudewijn Haverkort & Holger Hermans & Joost-Pieter Katoen
    2. Model-checking algorithms for continuous-time Markov Chains
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n6(Jun 2003)pp524-541
    4. =THEORY MATHEMATICS MODEL CHECKING CTMC CSL RELIABILITY CTL
    5. CSL:="Continuous Stochastic Logic". Steady state + path probabilities in time intervals. Modes P[event] <=> p. Nested. Generalizes CTL.
    6. CTMC::="continuous time Markov chains". P(i -> j fires after t) = c*exp( -rate*t) iff it is first.

    Baggi05

    1. Denis L Baggi
    2. An IEEE Standard for Symbolic Music
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V38n11(Nov 2005)pp100-102
    4. =REPORT MUSIC STANDARD P1599 XML MEI RM0
    5. P1599::= See http://www.computer.org/portal/pages/ieeecs/communities/standards/1599/par.html
    6. MusicXML::= See http://www.recordare.com/xml.html

    BaggiHaus09

    1. Denis Baggi & Goffredo Haus
    2. IEEE 1599: Music encoding and interaction
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V42n3pp84-87
    4. =ADVERT =STANDARD IEEE-1599 MUSIC AUDIO VISUAL NOTATION GAME JAZZ Blues XML
    5. IEEE1599::DTD= See http://standards.ieee.org/downloads/1599/1599-208/
    6. Example: <clef type="G" staff_step="2" event_ref="c1"/>
    7. Previous report [Baggi05]

    Bagrodia89

    1. Rajive Bagrodia
    2. Synchronisation of Asynchronous Processes in CSP
    3. ACM Trans Prog Lang Syst V11n4(Oct 1989) pp585-597
    4. =THEORY Technical non-sequential

    BahsounMerzServieres93

    1. Jean Paul Bahsoun & Stephan Merz & Corinne Servieres<all@irit.fr>
    2. A Framework for Programming and Formalizing Concurrent Objects [Notkin93] pp 126-137
    3. =THEORY non-sequential objects TLA
        The conjunction of the single agent's specifications plus some axioms representing the communication structure.

      1. messages::=${ sender, destination::agent, mode::modes, type::message_types, parameters::vector, ...}.

        Two modes: asynchronous- after sending the sender does not wait, semi-synchronous - the sender will not send a message of the same type to the same receiver before the first message has been acknowledged by the receiver.

        Assumes arbitrary delays and that messages can get out of order.

        TLA formalization via send[a](M)::=net:| a><M.... Conclusions Now need to investigate inheritance. must spec both components and protocols...


    BaierEtAl07

    1. Christel Baier & Lucia Cloth & Boudewijn R Haverkort & Mathias Kuntz & Markus Siegle
    2. Model Checking Markov Chains with Actions and State Labels
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V33n4(Apr 2007)pp209-224
    4. =THEORY MODEL CHECKING REAL TIME MARKOV CHAINS PROBABILITY LOGIC asCSL
    5. Logic + model design for verifying requirements that a given pattern of actions and states (and time limits) has a given range of probabilities.
    6. Example requirement: the probabillity of entering a full state via a number of arrive actions within 5 time units must be greater than or equal to 99%.
    7. Defines products of chains.
    8. Cellular phone hand over model.
    9. experiment with tool.

    BaikBoehmSteece02

    1. Jongmoon Baik & Barry Boehm & Bert M Steece
    2. Disaggregating and Calibrating the CASE Tool Variable in COCOMO II
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n11(Nov 2003)pp1009-1022
    4. =EMPIRICAL Bayesian STATISTICAL MODEL COST TOOLS COCOMO CMM
    5. Proposes new rating scales for the quality of a CASE Tool and calibrates them on 15 projects.
    6. New measures improved model by about 70%.
    7. New scales: tool coverage(TCOV), Tool integration(TINT), tool maturity/user support(TMAT).
    8. All 3 new measures are important.

    Bailin89

    1. SC Bailin
    2. An Object-Oriented Requirements Specification Method
    3. Commun ACM v32n5(May 1989)pp608-623 [ 63485.63491 ]
    4. =IDEA OBJECTS ERD DFD Reality PURPOSE TECHNICAL SRS

    Baines98

    1. Robin Baines
    2. Across Disciplines: Risk& Design& Method& Process& and Tools
    3. IEEE Software magazine V15n4(Jul/Aug 1998)pp61-64
    4. =EXPERIENCE PEOPLE ENGINEERING
    5. Compare your software people's activities with other engineers in your company

    Baker93ab

    1. Steven Baker
    2. Net Worth Column
    3. Unix Review (Jun 1993)pp23-37 & (Jul 1993)pp25-34
    4. =HISTORY STANDARDS MIME EMail Multimedia SGML richtext RTF

    Baker97

    1. Richard A Baker Jr
    2. Code Reviews Enhance Software QUALITY [ICSE'97]
    3. When technical managers reveiw their subordinates code errors drop by 40% at a cost of <2%. Like by those being reviewed - manager cares and knows our work.

    BakerB07

    1. Brenda S Baker
    2. Finding clones with Dup: Analysis ofan experiment
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V33n9(Sep 2007)pp608-621
    4. =EXPERIMENT TOOLS COPYPASTE DRY SOURCE Dup
    5. Also see [BellonEtAl07]

    BakerLevin83

    1. Stephen Baker & Arnie Levin
    2. I hate Meetings
    3. Macmillan NY 1983 ISBN0-02-506370-7
    4. = JOKES PEOPLE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS
    5. Good explanation why people hate meetings.
    6. Confirms purpose of meetings: too spread the blame/responsibility widely.
    7. Chapter 8: good field guide to problem people from the chair's point of view: Speech maker, Yawner, Bottom liner, Devil's advocate, Early leaver, late-comer.

    BalakrishnanFitzmaurice Kurtenbac.h01

    1. Ravin Balakrishnan & George W Fitzmaurice & Gordon Kurtenbac.h
    2. user interfaces for volumetric displays
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V34n3(Mar 2001)pp37-45
    4. =ARTICLE NEW HCI 3D GRAPHIC hardware
    5. pinch, twist, slice, & crush that display!

    Balasubramanianetal95

    1. V Balasubramanian & Bang Min Ma & Joonhee Yoo
    2. A Systematic Approach to Designing a WWW Application
    3. Commun ACM V38n8(Aug 1995)pp47-48
    4. RMD::=Relational Managemnt Data (diagram) with slicing

    BalasubramianEtal06

    1. Krishnakuma Balasubramian & Aniruddh Gokhale & Gabor Karsai & Janos Sztipanovits & Sandeep Neema
    2. Developing applications using model-driven design environments
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n2(Feb 2006)pp33-40 =DEMO MDD not MDA GME PICML ECSL DOMAIN MODEL LANGUAGES DSML
    4. DSML::="Domain-Specific Modeling Language".
    5. MIC::="Model-Integrated Computing".
    6. Models replace programming languages, and each application domain has customized modeling languages.
    7. GME:="Generic modeling environment", Vanderbilt University [ gme ]
    8. PICML::="Platform independent component modeling language".

    Baldwin92

    1. Doug Baldwin
    2. Using Scientific Experiemnts in Early Computer Science Laboratories
    3. ACM 23rd SIGCSE technial Symposium SIGCSE Bulletin V24n1(Mar 1992)pp102-106

    BaldwinChung95

    1. Reid A Baldwin & Moon Jung Chung
    2. A Formal Approach to Managing Design Processes
    3. IEEE Coputer Magazine V28n2(Feb 1995)pp54-63
    4. Process Flow Graph.... DFD like but with alternate refinements.

    BaldwinHenderson02

    1. Doug Baldwin & Peter B Henderson
    2. The Importance of Mathematics to the Software Practitioner
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V19n2(Mar/Apr 2002)pp112+110-111
    4. =ESSAY MATH
    5. Response to article by Robert Glass 2000.
    6. Good School math correlates with good scores in freshman programming even tho' there was little explicit math in the programming classes.
    7. Although programmers do not find much use for the calculus [Lethbridge00] , modest use of simple math combined with other good practices reduces defects [LarsonFitzgeralBrooks96] and/or bugs [PfleegerHatton97].
    8. For more see [ relevance.html ]

    BallCrawford99

    1. Steve Ball & John Miller Crawford
    2. Are Java Applets Independent Programs?
    3. Dr. Dobb's n298(Apr 1999)pp101-104+105
    4. =DEMO TECHNICAL JAVA RISK
    5. Classwide fields are shared between all applets of a given type. Shows how to have one field per applet.

    Ballanceetal90

    1. Robert A Ballance & Susan L Graham & Michael L Van De Vanter
    2. The Pan Language-Based Editing System for Integrated Development Environments
    3. SIGSOFT'90 pp77-93
    4. p85 Logic programming

    BallEick96

    1. Thomas Ball(mailto:tjball@bell-labs.com) & Stephen G Eick(mailto:eick@bell-labs.com)
    2. Software Visualization in the Large
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V29N4(Apr 1996)pp33-43
    4. =DEMO colored graphic technical source code

    BallLarus00

    1. Thomas Ball(microsoft) & James R Larus(microsoft)
    2. Using paths to measure, explain, and enhance program behavior
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n7(Jul 2000)pp57-65
    4. =SURVEY TECHNICAL GRAPH PERFORMANCE CORRECTNESS
    5. maximal acyclic control paths. hot paths.

    BalsamoMarcoInveradiSimeoni04

    1. Simonetta Balsamo & Antinisca Di Marco & Paola Inveradi & Marta Simeoni
    2. Model-Based Performance Prediction in Software Development: A Survey
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n5(May 2004)pp295-310 CR 0504-0464
    4. =SURVEY MODEL QUALITIES PERFORMANCE 15 METHODS UML ALGEBRA QN Petri
    5. Nearly all methods us UML and QN
    6. QN::=Queuing Networks.
    7. Most are highly automated and focus on software architecture and software design.

    Balsters03

    1. Hermann Balsters
    2. Modeling database views with derived classes in the UML/OCL-framework
    3. LNCS 2863 <<UML>> 2003 -- The Unified Modeling Language Oct 2003, pp295-309
    4. =IDEA MODEL DATA VIEWS RELATIONAL DB RDB OCL
    5. Introduces derived classes with names like /Emp2

    Bamberger97

    1. Judy Bamberger(bamberger@eaglet.rain.com)
    2. Essence of the Capability Maturity Model
    3. IEEE Computer magazine V30n8(Jun 1997)p112-114
    4. =REPORT IMPROVEMENT CMM

    BamfordDeibler93

    1. Robert C Bamford & William J Deibler II
    2. Comparing & contrasting ISO9000 and the SEI capability maturity model
    3. IEEE Computer magazine v26n10(Oct 1993)pp68-70

    BamfordDeibler03

    1. Robert Bamford & William J Deibler
    2. ISO 9001;2000:for software and systems providers: an engineering approach
    3. CRC Press Boca Raton FL 2003 ISBN 0849320631 CR 0511-1193
    4. =REFERENCE ENGINEERING QUALITY STANDARD

    BanatreLeMetayer93

    1. Jean-Pierre Banatre & Daniel Le Metayer
    2. Programming by Multiset Transformation
    3. Comm ACM V36n1(Jan 1993)pp98-111
    4. Concurrent nondeterministic repeated local operations
    5. GAMMA=General Abstract Model for Multiset mAnipulation
        In MATHS |-For Type T, bag(T) ::=Nat0^T. |-For Type T, t:T, bag(t) ::=t+>1|+> 0.
      1. For Type T, n:Nat, x:T^n, bag(x)::= +(bag o x).
      2. For Type T, B:bag(T), B:@T::={t:T||B(t)>0}. For T:Type, n:Nat, X:=T^n, reaction:=(@^X)><(T^X), RA:finite_set(reaction), S:variable(bag(T)),
      3. Γ(RA)::=
      4. do with(x:T^n, (R,A) :RA) (
      5. x in R&S and S'=S-bag(x)+bag(A(x))
      6. ).


    Bandinelietal95

    1. sergio Bandineli & Alfonso Fuggetts & Luigi Lavazza & Maurizio & Gain Pietro Picco
    2. Modeling and improving an Industrial Software Process
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V21n5(May 1995)pp440-453
    4. =EXPERIENCE PROCESS MODEL
    5. when improving a process you need to check the official process against the reality. Also the official process may be described in terms that are ambiguous. FSMs and Petrie nets can be used to uncover ambiguities and iaccuracies in the official process. Further they can lead to the discovery of simple and effective improvements in the process.

    BandiVaishnaviTurk03

    1. Rajendra K Bandi & Vijay K Vaishnavi & Daniel E Turk
    2. Predicting Maintenance Performance Using Object-Oriented Design complexity metrics
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n1(Jan 2003)pp77-87
    4. =EXPERIMENT Object-Oriented METRICS MAINTENANCE EMPIRICAL ANOVA
    5. Three metrics: interaction level (IL), Interface size (IS), and Operation Argument Complexity (OAC)
    6. Two tasks, one perfective and the other corrective maintenance.
    7. 93 students 5 sections, GPA 3.5, 14 credits of CIS work.
    8. tested for difference due to complexity, instructor and quarter.
    9. Complexity had a significant effect on maintenance time.
    10. Correlation indicates significant positive linear relations between each metric and maintenance time. But R^2 is only 12-25%

    BaniassadEtal06

    1. Elisa Baniassad & Paul C Clements & Joao Araujo & Ana Moreira & Awais Rashid & Bedir Tekinerdogan
    2. Discovering Early Aspect
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V23n1(Jan/Feb 2006)pp61-70
    4. =IDEA ASPECTS REQUIREMENTS ARCHITECTURE
    5. See [ http://www.early-aspects.net ]
    6. An aspect is a property that cuts across the dominant decomposition.
    7. In requirements, aspects constrain many scenarios.
    8. In architecture, aspects cut across many views.

    Bankeretal93

    1. Rajiv D Banker & Srikani M Datar & Chris F Kemerer & Dani Zweig
    2. Software Complexity and Maintenance Costs
    3. Comm ACM V36n11(Nov 1993)pp81-94
    4. Maintenance Time increased by larger modules & larger paragraphs & "bad" GOTOs

    BankerKemerer89

    1. Rajiv D Banker & Srikani M Datar & Chris F Kemerer
    2. Scale Economies in New Software Development
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng VSE-15n10(Oct 1989)pp1199-1205 [ TSE.1989.559768 ]
    4. =THEORY ONESIZE
    5. Argues work=a+size^b is false because b varies giving a "most productive scale size" that "varies widely accross different application environments"

    BansiyaDavis02

    1. Jagdish Bansiya & Carl G Davis
    2. A Hierarchical Model for Object-Oriented Design Quality Assessment
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n1(Jan 2002)pp4-17
    4. =EMPIRICAL QUALITIES METRIC OBJECT QMOOD C++ TOOL QMOOD++ MFC OWL MSWINDOWS FRAMEWORKS COOL
    5. Evaluated a set of metrics of two frameworks (MFC, OWL) over several releases.
    6. Ranked 13 COOL projects by hand and by QMOOD++ and found 0,4..0.9 correlation.

    BanslerBoedker93

    1. Jorgen P Bansler & Keld Boedker
    2. A Reappraisal of Structured analysis: design in an organisational context
    3. ACM Trans Inf Syst V11n2(Apr 93)pp165-193, CR9402-0096
    4. =POLL THEORY VS PRACTICE SA/SD Yourdon DeMarco DFD
    5. SA treats people as machines and so ignores errors creativity politics, assumes all problems have been stated, rational designer, separation of function from implementation
    6. small survey interviewing successful SA/SD.
    7. people use tools not the rules. DFDs and ERDs. prototypes, screen layout
    8. Abstract:
        "This study reveals that while some of the tools of Structured Analysis - notably data flow diagrams - are used and combined with other tools, the designers do not follow the analysis and design procedures prescribed by the method"

    Bar-David93

    1. Tsvi Bar-David
    2. Object-oriented design for C++
    3. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ 1993
    4. CR9312-0913 D.1.5
        Mathematical treatment Appendix A: Barbara Liskov's "Data abstraction and Hierarchy" OOPSLA87

    BarbierEtal03

    1. Franck Barbier & Brian Henderson-Sellers & Annig Le Parc-Lacarelle & Jean-Michele Bruel
    2. Formalization of the Whole-Part Relationship in the Unified Modeling Language
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n5(May 2003)pp459-470 Reviewed CR 0409-1078 and 0409-1079
    4. =PROPOSAL Object-Oriented MODEL STANDARD aggregation composition whole-part bibliography UML OCL MetaModel OML OPEN Diamonds
    5. careful philosophical analysis of semantics of whole-part. some confused "common logic" and much OCL.
    6. Defines a new dotted diamond whole-part Relationship with specialization of aggregation and composition.
    7. Introduces new stereotypes to indicate OCL constraints on the UML MetaModel.
    8. Will it make it into UML4.0?
    9. Correspondence
      1. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n11(Nov 2003)pp1054-1056
      2. "On formalization of the whole-part relationship in the unified modeling Language" by Hee Beng Kuan Tan & Lun Hao & Yong Hang corrects discrepancies,
      3. "Controversies about the Black and White Diamonds" by Frank Barbier & Brian Henderson-Sellers" responds by changing name of "antisymmetry", accepting new formula for "transitivity", and agreeing to minor correction in a proof. Regrets the absence of "scientific" review of UML specifications.


    BarbosaCostaAlmeidaAlameida04

    1. Marcello W Barbosa & Mellssa M Costa & Jussara M Almeida & Virgilio A P Alameida
    2. Using Locality of reference to improve performance of peer-to-peer applications
    3. WOSP'04 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V29n1(Jan 2004)pp216-227
    4. =SIMULATION P2P NET PERFORMANCE DATA LOCATION QoS Freenet Gnutella
    5. claims 20..30% decrease in latency with no added load on network by knowing which node might have the data.

    BaresiOrsoPezze97

    1. Luciano Baresi & Alessandro Orso & Mauro Pezze
    2. Introducing Formal Specification Methods in Industrial Practice [ICSE'97]
    3. need to develop special languages and notations fr each set of clients therefore a customizable system. Uses hypergraph grammars and kernel of petri nets

    BaresiPezze98

    1. Luciano Baresi & Mauro Pezze
    2. Toward Formalizing Structured Analysis
    3. ACM ToSEM V7n1(Jan 1998)pp80-107
    4. =ANALYSIS STRUCTURED METHOD SA/RT
    5. issues to be resolved before choosing a formal model for Hatley-Pirbhai SA for Real Time systems

    Barjis08

    1. Joseph Barjis
    2. The importance of business process modeling in software systems design
    3. Science of Computer Programming V71n1(Mar 2008)pp73-87 [ science $CR 0906-0558 ]
    4. =ADVERT METHOD THEORY MODEL DEMO LANGUAGE-ACTION PETRI GRAPHIC ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS SCENARIOS Keywords: Requirements specifications; Model checking; Business process modeling; Business process simulation;
    5. DEMO::="Design & Engineering Methodology for Organizations", [ http://www.demo.nl/ ]
    6. Special colored Petri nets show logic. Can be simulated to show clients what is possible.
    7. Analyze business processes in terms of the language-action cycle as expressed as Transactions between parts.
    8. Transaction::=Order; Execution; Result.
    9. Order is a transition from initiator to executor. It sets up a contract for the executor to carry out.
    10. Result is a transition from executor to initiator. It completes the contract.
    11. Execution is executed by the executor and can initiate further transactions with others.

    Barlas96

    1. Stephen Barlas
    2. Anatomy of a Runaway: What Grounded the AAS(Advanced Automation System)
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V13n1(Jan 1996)pp104-106
    4. Failure of a 10 year life-cycle at edge of technology at start with 99.99999% reliability and dynamic loose REQUIREMENTS [Barlas96a]

    Barlas96a

    1. Stephen Barlas
    2. FAA Shifts Focus to Scaled-Back DSR
    3. IEEE Software magazine V13n3(Mar 1996)pp110+114

      [Hall96a]

      [Barlas96]

      [KlosterZellweger87]

    BarnardPrice94

    1. Jack Barnard & Art Price
    2. Managing Code Inspection Information
    3. IEEE Software magazine v11n2(Mar 1994)pp59-69
    4. =EXPERIENCE QUALITY control of SQA

    Barnesetal91

    1. Bruce H Barnes & Terry H Bolinger
    2. Making Reuse Cost-Effective
    3. IEEE Software v6n1(Jan 1991)pp13-24

    Barnhart95

    1. Andy Barnhart
    2. Let's Get Stupid
    3. Software Development Mag V3n3(Mar 1995)pp63-67.
    4. =ESSAY TECHNICAL
    5. advantages for going for the obvious simple solution that works.
    6. problems with inspired brilliant solutions.
    7. The algorithm that suddenly starts to work when you are playing with it and you don't know why.
    8. Documenting Magic.

    Barnhart99

    1. Andy Barnhart
    2. Wrapping COBOL Business Logic in Java
    3. Software Development Mag V7n10(Oct 1999)pp41-45.
    4. =EXPERIENCE TECHNICAL COBOL JAVA GUI LEGACY
    5. MARS UK RLSCOM Telco marketting cellular air time

    Barrett87

    1. Geof Barrett
    2. Formal Methods Applied to a Floating Point Number System
    3. Technical Monograph 58 PRG Oxford 1987
    4. =EXPERIENCE PROOF Floating-point operations STANDARD
        used Hoare/Floyd-style proofs to prove that Inmos' software floating-point package satisfied its specification, a Z-ified version of the IEEE-754 standard. This software fp package was the starting point for the formally-derived microcode for the FPU in the Inmos T800 transputer. This was certainly a real-world application; moreover, the formal approach overtook the informal approach, and in the process they found an inconsistency and an ambiguity in the IEEE standard, and a bug in a competitor's chip. Inmos and the PRG (Oxford) were awarded a Queen's Award for Technological Achievement for the T800 project.

        Includes Floating point IEEE TSE paper -- where is it?


    Barrett95

    1. Geof Barrett
    2. Model Checking in Practice: The T9000 Virtual Channel Processor
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-21n2(Feb 1995)pp69-78
    4. =EXPERIENCE SQA INSPECTIONS MODEL CHECKING FORMAL NOTATIONS STD CSP Z English
    5. Sometime implementation was correct when the spec was wrong
    6. Easier to show what can happen than to show that something can not happen
    7. Problem with notation(CSP) - "completely alien" to people used to STDs.
    8. Quote: "Must base our tools on familiar notations and understand the obstacles...this means that visual specifications have to be used as much as possible."
    9. Using multiple notations. STDs+Z+English.
    10. Using checker for finite sequences.
    11. Need an unusual combination of engineering, mathematical and programming skills

    BarryStanienda98

    1. Douglas Barry Torsten Stanienda
    2. Solving the Java Object Storage Problem
    3. IEEE Computer magazine V31n11(Nov 1998)pp33-40
    4. =DEMO TECHNICAL JAVA JDBC ODMG persistence SQL

    Basili90

    1. Victor R Basili
    2. Viewing Maintenance as Reuse-oriented Software Development
    3. IEEE Software V7n1(Jan 1990)pp19-25
    4. System Technical

    Basili95

    1. Victor Basili(interviewed)
    2. Finding an Experimental Basis for Software Engineering
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V12n3(May 1995)pp92-93
    4. =ADVERT EMPIRICAL GQM QUALITIES EXPERIMENTS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT EXPERIENCE
    5. The Software Engineering Laboratory
    6. Goal/Question/Metric paradigm
    7. QUALITY Improvement Paradigm
    8. A separate Experience Factory

    9. "The process is a variable to be manipulated"
    10. "You can't just hand developers a tool or a method and walk away[...]be there as a resource,[...]supply cost models[...]types of defects[...]uncovering that class of defects[...]"

    11. ISERN::=International Software Engineering Research Network.
    12. Also see [Basili95a]

    Basili95a

    1. Victor Basili
    2. The Experience Factory and its Relationship to Other Quality Approaches
    3. Advances in Computers V41(1995)pp66-82
    4. =EMPIRICAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EF/QIP vs PDCA:=Plan_Do_Check_Act + TQM + SEI CMM
    5. Also see [Basili95]

    BasiliBriandMelo96

    1. Victor R Basili & Lionel C Briand & Walcelio L Melo
    2. How Reuse Influences Productivity in Object-Oriented Systems
    3. Comm ACM V39n10(Oct 1996)pp104-116
    4. =experiment OMT Gnu C++ OSF/Motif
    5. significant benefits in defect density rework and productivity

    BasiliDonzelliAsgari04

    1. Victor Basili & Paolo Donzelli &Sima Asgari
    2. A Unified Model of Dependability: Capturing Dependability in Context
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V21n6(Nov /Dec 2004)pp19-25
    4. =CASESTUDY UMD TOOL THEORY QUALITIES DEPENDABILITY TSAFE
    5. Jargon! Students simulate stakeholders?

    Basilietal95

    1. Victor Basili & Frank McGarry & Jerry Page & Sharon Waligora & Rose Pajerski
    2. SEL's Software Process-improvement Program
    3. IEEE Software Magazine(Nov 1995)pp83-87
    4. =ADVERT SPIN SEL IMPROVEMENT
    5. 20 years: 75% fewer defect+50% reduction in cost+25% reduction in cycle time while complexity increased
    6. understand; Assess&Refine;Pakage
    7. significant changes come from Cleanroom and SQA techniques not PDL/Ada/OO.

    BasiliMcGarryPajerskiZelkowitz02

    1. Victor Basili & Frank E McGarry & Rose Pajerski & Marvin V Zelkowitz
    2. Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the NASA software engineering laboratory
    3. ICSE24(May 2002)pp69-79 CR 0406-0749
    4. =UNREAD =HISTORY IMPROVEMENT NASA SEL
    5. Need management & staff support + focus & data.

    BasiliPerricone84

    1. Victor R Basili & Barry T Perricone
    2. Software Errors and Complexity: An Empirical Investigation
    3. Commun ACM V27n1(Jan 1984)pp42-42 + Correspondence V28n3(Mar 1985)pp322-323 (with Richard J Botting, H Dieter Rombach & Richard W Selby)
    4. =EMPIRICAL DEFECTS MODULE COMPLEXITY SIZE SEL CHANGES
    5. New application means requirements change during the project.
    6. New modules have different kinds of errors than changed modules.
    7. Module size did not account for error proneness.
    8. Intuition clashes with data.

    BasiliRombach87

    1. Victor R Basili & H Dieter Rombach
    2. Implementing Quantitive SQA: A Practical Model: Guest Editor's Intro to theme articles
    3. IEEE Software V4n5(Sep 1987)pp6-61
    4. =EMPIRICAL QUALITY

    BasinDoserLodderstedt06

    1. David Basin & Jurgen Doser & Torsten Lodderstedt
    2. Model driven security: from UML models to access control infrastructures
    3. ACM TOSEM Trans Software Eng & Methodology V15n1(Jan 2006)pp39-91
    4. =DEMO MDA MODEL SECURITY ASPECT RBAC SecureUML DIALECT Java JB2EE .NET
    5. Extends RBAC using UML metamodeling.
    6. RBAC::= Net{Users, Roles, Permissions: Sets. POSET(Roles, <=). UA:@(Users, Roles). PA:@(Roles, Permissions). AC:=UA o <= o PA.}.
    7. A user u can execute action a iff u AC a.
    8. Extend RBAC by adding a hierarchy of Actions.
    9. Shows how to generate complex & secure code by translating a UML model with SecureUML profile.

    Baskerville93

    1. Richard Baskerville
    2. Information Systems Security Design Methods: Implications for Information Systems Development
    3. Comp Surveys V25n4(Dec 1993)pp375-414 (history of systems analysis ::=check lists; mechanical; abstraction)

    BaskervilleEtal01

    1. Richard Baskerville & Linda Levine & Jan Pries-Heje & Balasubramaniam Ramesh & Sandra Slaughter
    2. How Software Companies Negotiate Quality
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V34n5(May 2001)pp51-57
    4. =POLL MARKET TIME QUALITIES drive PROCESS ONE-SIZE
    5. toad_code::= "working code that was developed hopping fast and is ugly"

    BaskervilleEtAl03

    1. Richard Baskerville & Balasubramaniam Ramesh & Linda Levine & Jan Pries-Heje & Sandra Slaughter
    2. Is Internet-speed software development Different?
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n6(Nov/Dec 2003)pp70-77
    4. =COLLOQUIUM INTERNET WWW/net AGILE
    5. Answer=YES!
    6. Concurrent operation and development but no maintenance, fast releases, tools, customers in team, stable architecture, assemble and reuse components, evolve methodology, people!

    GrafLormansToetenel03

    1. Bas Graf & Marco Lormans & Hans Toetenel
    2. Embedded Software Engineering: The State of the Practice
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n6(Nov/Dec 2003)pp61-69
    4. =POLL 36 INTERVIEWS EMBEDDED REQUIREMENTS ARCHITECTURE MOOSE ITEA UML
    5. Hardware driven, top-down: system drives subsystem drives component. At each stage the previous architecture becomes a requirement in the next level.
    6. Stakeholders ={manufacturing, maintenance, marketing(users/consumers)}.
    7. Context = { Suppliers, standards, legacies, regulators }
    8. Requirements expressed in text using word processors and templates. Informal diagrams. Use cases from the UML. Some sequence diagrams and domain models. Pre/post conditions in programming. Only one formal specification(in Z).
    9. Managing changing requirements: spreadsheets.
    10. Architecture: vs time-to-market. Creative.
    11. Performance: design for maximum speed possible, hope, and test. UML popular with Visio and Rose. DFDs. ERDs. HatleyPirbhai.
    12. Reuse: Ad hoc.
    13. Memory, power and real time less prominent than expected.
    14. Modern methods/technologies: vs legacy systems, are too immature and complex,

    BassNordWoodZubrow06

    1. Len Bass & Robert Nord & William Wood & David Zubrow
    2. Risk Themes Discovered Through Architecture
    3. =EXPERIENCE RISK ARCHITECTURE ATAM QUALITY
    4. Tech Report CMU/SEU-2006-TR-012
    5. ATAM::="Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method".
    6. Lists 15 Risk Theme Categories: Availability, Performance, security, modifiability, integration, process and tools, requirements, allocation, documentation, Big Picture, Unrecognized needs, product lines, awareness, scope, coordination.
    7. Claims 99 risk themes.
    8. Reference to Boeing experience with ATAM and Charette's failure causes.
    9. Relation to business goals.
    10. Importance of "Performance" .
    11. No evidence that risks are independent of domain. One size does not fit all.
    12. Risks of commission and Omission. Omission more common.
    13. Odd fact: security was always a risk of omitting to do something.

    Bassett94

    1. Paul Bassett
    2. Reusability: You Reap What You Sow
    3. Software Magazine(Sep 1994)pp110-109
        Need to rethink the whole process rather than putting in special reuse patches... 10 possibile benfits:
      1. productivity, quality, flexibility, performance, portability, standards, hidden complexity, compatibility, reduced maintenance, evloution of common parts.

    Bastanied93

    1. Farokh Bastani
    2. Special Issue on Software Reliability
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-19n11(Nov 1993)pp1013-1118

    BasterKonanaScott01

    1. Greg Baster & Prabhudev Konana & Judy E Scott
    2. Business Components: A Case Study of Bankers Trust Australia Limited
    3. Commun ACM V44n5(May 2001)pp92-98
    4. =CASESTUDY DOMAIN TECHNOLOGY USER COMPONENTS ARCHITECTURE MODULES Arcadia
    5. B_T_gap::= "Business-Technology Gap", a clash of subcultures.
    6. Important to get shared knowledge and resolve cultural values.
    7. Give the business users the ability to assemble applications from a repository of components.
    8. lessons learned:=following,
      1. understand the gap.
      2. understand usage patterns to minimize costly disruption.
      3. leverage user skills.
      4. Low profile and low hype.
      5. involve the detail-oriented users and allow word-of-mouth diffusion.
      6. long prototyping process.
      7. Leverage technical skills vs use skills -- technical optimize, users work out script details.
      8. Plan for reuse but not as a central focus. components evolve. user acceptance and buyin must come before reuse.

    Batoryetal95

    1. Don Batory(utexas) & Lou Coglianese & Mark Goodwin & Steve Shafer(Loral)
    2. Creating Reference Architectures: An Example from Avionics
    3. See [SamadzadehZand95]
    4. pp27-37
    5. =CASE-STUDY ADAGE REUSE GenVoca realms DOMAIN [BatorySighalSirkinThomas93] [BatorySighalThomasetal94] [ Batoryetal95.html ]
    6. Gathering simple info was the most difficult aspect.
    7. Twice the cost and effort of a single system.

    BatoryEtal00

    1. Don Batory & Gang Chen & Eric Robertson & Tao Wang
    2. Design Wizards and Visual Programming Environments for GenVoca Generators
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V26n5(May 2000)pp441-452
    4. =DEMO TOOL DSL ARCHITECTURE P3 DATA PERFORMANCE JAVA JTK
    5. Containers and cursors, type equations, optimization NP-hard

      [ schwartz ]

    BatoryEtal02

    1. Don Batory & Clay Johnson & Bob MacDonald & Dale Vov Heeder
    2. Achieving Extensibility Through Product-lines and Domain-Specific Languages
    3. ACM TOSEM Trans Software Eng & Methodology V11n2(Apr 2002)pp191-214
    4. =CASESTUDY ASPECTS ARCHITECTURE GenVoca PLAs DSLS REUSE FSMs Java JavaSM
    5. Features as first-class components that cross-cut across OO hierarchies

    BatoryGeraci97

    1. Don Batory & Bart J Geraci
    2. Composition Validation and Subjectivity in GenVoca Generators
    3. IEEE Trans Softw Eng V23n2(Feb 1997)pp67-82
    4. how to verify composition rules and how to allow multiple interfaces to components

    BatorySighalSirkinThomas93

    1. Don Batory & Vivek Sighal & Marty Sirkin & Jeff Thomas<*@cs.utexas.edu>
    2. Scalable Software Libraries [Notkin93] pp191-199
    3. GenVoca [BatorySighalThomasetal94]
        Abstract: "... Libraries should not enumerate complex components with numerous features; rather, libraries should take a minimalist approach: They should provide only primitive building blocks and be accompanied by generators that can combine these blocks to yield complex data structures"

        Examples Booch C++(400 distinct DSs) and Gnu C++...

        The GenVoca Model [Bat92b: BatoryO'Malley92, "The design and Implementtion of hierarchical software systems with reusable components", ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol October 1992] , not OOP. Layered software components.

        Analyse libg++: does not use inheritance to capture similar algorithms..

        BoochC++: 18 varieties of deques! But can not use inheritance because need to carefully integrate concurrency guards and deque algorithms.

        layered, high level, standardized abstraction

        example P1 The P2 generator: the typex statement, container cursor,...

        Results. on spell checking Decl Indep... Using Booch C++,libg++, P1,P2.... on 4 structures: Unordred linked list, unordered array, sorted array, binary tree P1 P2 had smaller LOC. P1 and P2 faster on all but sorted array.

        Modification of P1/P2 easier.

        software template


    BatorySarvelaRauschmayer04

    1. Don Batory & Jacob N Sarvela & Axel Rauschmayer
    2. Scaling Step-Wise Refinement
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n6(Jun 2004)pp355-371 & ICSE 2003
    4. =TOOL GENERATE CODE FEATURE REFINEMENT SWR AHEAD Gen Voca ATS JAX Java
    5. AHEAD::= "Algebraic Hierarchical Equations for Application Design".
    6. Refinements apply to many types of artifacts(eg. Java code, Makefile, ...) in a uniform way.
    7. Artifacts treated as indexed collections (code=name<>->class, Makefile=target<>->action,...)
    8. A product is described as a set of equations in terms of features and the code is generated automatically.
    9. Two operations: A \dot B adds A to B. A \diamond B replaces items in B by matching A items.
    10. meta-modelling: Options and product lines described as unindexed sets.
    11. Origami::= Describe each concern in a separate equation.

    BatorySighalThomasetal94

    1. Don Batory<batory@cs.utexas.edu> & Vivek Sighal & Sankar Dasari & Jeff Thomas & Marty Sirkin
    2. The GenVoca Model of Software-System Generators
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V11n5(Sep 1994)pp89-94
        p91: "Surprisingly we found this domain[data structures] poses the same challenges as the domains of large software systems. The specificatons of realms, components, and component composition for data base systems, communication systems, distributed file systems, and avionics software is the same - only the complexity of the algorithms differs." [BatorySighalSirkinThomas93]
      1. Examples Genesis and Predator
      2. P++ language on top of C++
      3. abstraction encapsulation and parameterization
      4. realms, components, parameters
      5. components encapsulate classes etc
      6. realms describe sets of components
      7. components act as transformers of input classes into new outut classes
      8. parameters for constants, types, realms, components,...

        Example: Data Structures in terms of containers, cursors, and links.


    BaudryEtal05

    1. Benoit Baudry & Franck Fleurey & Jean-Marfc Jezequel & Yves Le Traon
    2. Automatic Test Case Optimization: A Bacteriologic Algorithm
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V22n2(Mar/Apr 2005)pp76-81
    4. =IDEA C# PARSER BUILDER VISITOR TESTING MUTATION EVOLUTION FITNESS
    5. Nice use of patterns in the sample Component Under Test (CUT) a C# parser.
    6. Need 30 generations to produce a set of tests that could kill all 500 mutants.

    Bauer92

    1. Henry H Bauer
    2. Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method
    3. U of Illinois Press Urbana Ill. QA175.B25 1992 ISBN 0252018567
    4. =SURVEY SCIENCE STS SOCIAL PROCESS
    5. not method but diverse error-correcting social processes.
    6. jigsaw puzzle filter:=(human, frontier science, primary literature, secondary literature, textbook science, ...)
    7. proponents haven't been good testers.
    8. scientific knowledge is more like a map than a collection of facts
    9. prediction is not proof but helps, if theory useful fitting inteqesting
    10. includes innovation vs conservative
    11. needs explicit enforced ethics
    12. Compare [Lakatos76] on mathematics.

    Baxter92

    1. Ira D Baxter
    2. Design Maintenance Systems
    3. Commun ACM V35n4(Apr 1992)pp73-89
    4. =EXPERIENCE MAINTENANCE DESIGN vs CODE
    5. design deltas analysed(function, performance,...) and lead to implementation deltas,
    6. Transformation Control Language(TCL)
    7. Author sent me EMail... Quote from bibtex entry:
        Suggests Design Maintenance rather than Code Maintenance should be focus. Shows how formal (transformational) model of software construction can be used to generate design histories, and also implicitly defines types of formal maintenance deltas. Procedures for updating a captured design history are sketched.

    Bayes1763

    1. T Bayes
    2. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances
    3. Phil Trans Royal Society V53(1763)pp370-418
    4. =THEORY PROBABILITY
    5. Bayes approach to probability was to assume that the number represented the degree of belief a person had in the proposition.
    6. He worked argued that a rational person would have to follow certain rules. For example is P(A|B) is the probability of A given that B is true, then
    7. P(A&B) = P(A|B)*P(B).
    8. He worked out rules for rationally reevaluating the beliefs as new data came in.
    9. The heart of this is:
    10. (Bayes)|- (Bayes_theorem): if H is a set of mutually exclusive events, and E some new evidence, then for h:H, P( h | E) =P( E |h )*P(h )/Σ P( E | _ ).

    BayrakDavis03

    1. Coskun Bayrak & Chad Davis
    2. The Relationship between Distributed Systems and Open Source development
    3. Commun ACM V46n12(Dec2003)pp99-102
    4. =ESSAY OPEN SOURCE NONSEQUENTIAL PERFORMANCE OSD WWW/NET MARX MicroSoft W3C
    5. Analogy: Higher speeds in distributed computation come from NOT controlling and coordinating them but letting them loose. allowing a degree of inconsistency to develop is often a way to speed up the result.
    6. Tension between capital and craft..Close

    BCS/IEE89

    1. British Computer Society & Institution of Electrical Engineers
    2. A Report on Undergraduate Curricula For Software Engineering
    3. BCS London UK 1989
    4. =CURRICULUM
        "SE is not simply a more organized approach to programming [than untrained amateurs and early Computer Science]"

    Beale07

    1. Russell Beale
    2. Slanty design
    3. Commun ACM V50n1(Jan 2007)pp21-24
    4. =IDEA USER FUNCTION DESIGN
    5. Slanty_design::= reduce functionality or usability to make unwanted behavior difficult or impossible. Image: slanty tops to stop people putting things on them.

    BeauvaisEtal01

    1. J-R Beauvais & E Rutten & T Gautier & R Houdebine & P Le Guernic & Y-M Tang
    2. Modeling Statecharts and Activitycharts as signal equations
    3. ACM TOSEM Trans Software Engineering & Methodology V10n4(Oct 2001)pp397-451
    4. =THEORY TRANSLATION FSM statecharts denotation semantics Signal DC+ TOOL Sacres
    5. Signal::language.

    BeauxisPalamidessiValencia08

    1. Ramain Beauxis & Catuscia Palamidessi & Frank D Valencia
    2. On the asynchronous Nature of Asynchronous π-Calculus
    3. Montanari Festschrift [DeganoEtAl08] pp473-492
    4. =THEORY NONSEQUENTIAL BAGS QUEUES STACKS PI-CALCULUS
    5. Proves that to get behavior equivalent to π[a] (Asynchronous Pi Calculus) you need a normal π calculus where communication is through buffered channels that act as buffers. Queues and stacks can not simulate all π[a] behaviors.

    Beck99

    1. Kent Beck(First Class Software)
    2. Embracing Change with Extreme Programming
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V32n10(Oct 1999)pp70-77
    4. =ADVERT =EXPERIENCES =HISTORY OBJECT-ORIENTED PROCESS METHOD XP
    5. See book [Beck99b]

    Beck99b

    1. Kent Beck(First Class Software)
    2. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change
    3. Addison Wesley October 1999
    4. =ADVERT XP OBJECT-ORIENTED PROCESS METHOD
    5. XP::="Extreme Programming", continuous analysis, many tiny (Analysis;Design;Implementation;Test) iterations driven by feedback from previous iterations.
    6. Planning game, small releases, put what the user needs on 3 by 5 cards called user stories, metaphor as a collection of user stories, simple design(say everything once and only once),
    7. programmers are always testing, customers also provide tests, merciless refactoring,
    8. pair programming, continuous integration(within hours), collective ownership of code,
    9. on-site customer, 40.hour weeks, open worksapce, Just Rules.
    10. See [Beck99] and WikiWiki Reviews: [ wiki?ExtremeProgrammingExplainedEmbraceChange ]

    Beck00a

    1. Kent Beck
    2. Emergent Control in Extreme Programming
    3. Cutter IT Journal V13n11(Nov 2000)pp22-25
    4. =ADVERT TECHNICAL PROCESS XP
    5. XP :={ test first, planning game, short release cycle, pair programming, onsite customer, opn workspace, yesterday's weather, refactoring, continuous integration, collectiveownrship, simple once-and-only-once design, sane hours }.
    6. control can be in the rules rather than embodied in person.

    Beck01

    1. Kent Beck
    2. Aim, Fire
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V18n5(Sep/Oct 2001)pp87-89
    4. =DEMO TESTING first is ANALYSIS DESIGN SPECIFICATION
    5. "Never write a line of functional code without a broken test case".
    6. Ward Cunningham: "Test-first coding is not a testing technique".
    7. Writing tests helps you understand the problem: analysis.
    8. Writing tests described the logic of the design.
    9. Hard to write GUI tests.
    10. Claim that creatively lazy test-first coding tends to be more cohesive and less coupled -- because the interfaces tend to be minimized to saving typing: "intense feedback substitutes for the ability to guess right"
    11. Test cases expose misunderstandings in pair programming.
    12. Test cases document the all important answer to "What was this idiot thinking when he wrote this?".

    Beck02

    1. Kent Beck
    2. Test-driven development: by example
    3. Addison-Wesley Longman Boston MA 2002 ISBN 0321146530 [CR] 0308-0733
    4. =TUTORIAL TEST REFACTOR DESIGN JUnit xUnit Python

    Beck06

    1. Kent Beck
    2. Implementation Patterns
    3. Addison-Wesley Pro, Boston MA, 2006 ISBN 0321413091 CR 0903-0209 Safari [ 9780321413093 ]
    4. =THEORY PATTERNS Class State Behavior Collections Frameworks Performance TECHNICAL CODE = EXPERIENCE JUnit HotDraw
    5. Lots of detailed advice on object-oriented coding.

    BeckCunningham89

    1. Kent Beck & Ward Cunningham
    2. A Laboratory for Teaching Object-Oriented Thinking
    3. OOPSLA'89 conf Proceedings ACM SIGPLAN V24n10(Oct 1989)pp1-6
    4. =IDEA OBJECT_ORIENTED cards CRC_CARD

      [ paper.html ]

    5. Refers to [Wirfs-BrockWilkerson89]
        Note. "The CRC Press" is an established technical and engineering publisher.

      1. CRC_Card::physical=index_card(4.inch><6.inch), available, inexpensive, erasable.
      2. CRC::abbreviation="Class, Responsibility, Collaboration".
      3. CRC::=Net{C:=class:name_of_component, R:=responsible_for:%Responsibilities, C:=collaborators:%name_of_component}.

        Walking through a scenario: tracing an "application assigning each activity to some component". each CRC card held by a different member of the team Often a cycle of What/Who questions: #(what_next; who_does_it).


    BeckerMottay01

    1. Shirley A Becker & Florence E Mottay
    2. A Global perspective on web site usability
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V18n1(Jan/Feb 2000)pp54-61
    4. =THEORY USER WEB/NET DESIGN international
    5. usability on the web ==> layout + navigation + consistency + customer service + reliability + security + performance + visible content

    BeckwithEtal06

    1. Laura Beckwith & Marget Burnet & Valenline Grigoreanu & Susan Wiedenbeck
    2. Gender HCI: What about software?
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n11(Nov 2006)pp97-101
    4. =EXPERIMENT USER GENDER HCI MALE FEMALE self-efficacy tinkering
    5. Men & women use spreadsheet tools differently. Men like exploring features for fun but women with low self-efficacy want to use them to solve problems.
    6. Do software development tools put girls off?

    BedersonGrosjeanMeyer04

    1. Benjamin B Bederson & Jesse Grosjean & Jon Meyer
    2. Toolkit Design for Interactive Structured Graphics
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n8(Aug 2004)pp535-546
    4. =COMPARISON Object-Oriented LIBRARY DESIGN INHERITANCE vs COMPOSITION Java Swing GRAPHICS Jazz
    5. Piccolo Goal: an extensible structured graphics toolkit.
    6. Have many shapes and can add new ones easily.
    7. Jazz::= See http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/jazz/.
    8. Piccolo::= See http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/piccolo/.
    9. polylithic::design_styles="mainly using run-time composition to extend...". Many small classes, Easier to create but harder to use,
    10. monolithic::design_styles="mainly using compile-time inheritance to extend...". Few large classes. Harder to create but easier to use.
    11. (dick)|-Polylithic designs seem to use the GoF patterns.
    12. (dick)|-perhaps use composition for explore the domain and then reify functionality into a stable product.

    Beebe99

    1. TeX User Group bibliography archive
    2. =BIBLIOGRAPHY of mathematics+computing journals+magazines

      [ http://www.math.utah.edu/ftp/pub/tex/bib/toc/ ] Nelson H. F. Beebe Center for Scientific Computing University of Utah Department of Mathematics, 322 INSCC 155 S 1400 E RM 233 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090 USA beebe@math.utah.edu [ http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ ]

    Beer74

    1. Stafford Beer
    2. Designing freedom
    3. London Wiley 1974
    4. =ESSAYs RISKS Cybernetics NET/WWW

    Beeson81

    1. Michael J Beeson
    2. Formalizing Constructive Mathematics: Why and How?
    3. Constructive Mathematics Spring Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathemetics V873 pp146-190 1981
    4. =THEORY FORMAL LOGIC
    5. LPT::="Logic of Partial Terms"
    6. Compare [Schock68] [Parnas93] [JonesCB95] and [PVS] LPF:=Logic of Partial Functions

    BegayRauzy01

    1. Diddier Begay and A. Rauzy
    2. A realistic involvement of formal methods
    3. Software - Practice & Experience V31n2(Feb 2001)pp191-208
    4. =Type FORMAL HARDWARE VERIFICATION CTL SMV Aralia PVS

    BehrendsStirewalt00

    1. Reimer Behrends & R E Kurt Stirewalt
    2. The Universe Model: An approach for Improving the Modularity an Reliability of Concurrent Programs [FSE8] pp20-29
    3. =CASESTUDY NONSEQUENTIAL MODULES TECHNICAL OBJECT-ORIENTED
    4. Problems with interleaving many threads through one piece of code. Hard to separate concurrency control from useful code, modularity damaged. multi-step synchronization uncheckable.
    5. Objects in a universe and each universe can host at most one process at a time. No execution of code outside the process's universe.
    6. realm constraints control movement of processes between universes.

    BekkeringShim06

    1. Ernst Bekkering & J P Shim
    2. i2i trust in videoconferencing
    3. Commun ACM V49n7(Jul 2006)pp103-107
    4. =EXPERIMENTS VIDEO MEDIA USER PEOPLE RISKS
    5. i2i::cummunication="individual to individual"
    6. Videophones and videoconferences discourage trust because the camera is not directly behind the screen. If you look at the screen then you don't make eye contact with the person at the other end, and vice versa.
    7. Result: people trust voicemail and E-mail more than video.
    8. Cell phones and PDAs may not have this problem.
    9. Solution: variation on the "Reagan sincerity machine" which lets you look directly at the camera while seeing an image on a screen (e.g. a script).

    Bekic70

    1. H Beki\'c (IBM Lab Vienna)
    2. On the Formal Definition of Programming Languages
    3. International Computer Symposium 1970
    4. =CASE-STUDY VDL/VDM PL/I formal

    BelagerEtal06

    1. France Belanger & Weiguo Fan & L Christian Schaupp & Anjala Krishen & Jeanine Everhart & David Poteet & Kent Nakamoto
    2. Web site successMetrics: Addressing the duality of Goals
    3. Commun ACM V49n12(Dec 2006)pp114-116
    4. =ESSAY REQUIREMENTS TAXONOMY METRICS WEB/NET PURPOSES OWNERS vs USERS
    5. Success defined by owner goals + target audience.
    6. Table p115 has 11 distinct types of goal.
    7. Choose 2 sets of metrics: Owner vs user perspectives.

    BelinaHogrefeSarma91

    1. F Belina & D Hogrefe & A Sarma
    2. SDL with Applications from Protocol Specifications
    3. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River NJ 1991 ISBN 0-13-785890-6 BCS Practitioner Series
    4. =TEXT-BOOK SDL SPECIFICATION
    5. a gradual introduction to SDL concepts illustrated by real examples (including an approach to X.25) together with an appendix with complete rules for use of the language.

    Bell04

    1. Alex E Bell (+ comment by Grady Booch)
    2. Death by UML Fever
    3. ACM Queue V2n1(Mar 2004)pp72-81
    4. =JOKE HARMFUL UML
    5. Lists a couple of dozen abuses of UML, including a classic "Circle the wagons" Use Case.

    Bell08

    1. Alex E Bell
    2. Software Development amidst the whiz of silver bullets
    3. =JOKE FADS XML UML OO WEB SERVICES
    4. Commun ACM V51n8(Aug 2008)pp22-24 [ 1378704.1378712 ]
    5. Names some previous failed fads.
    6. Describes current (200n) fads.
    7. Fads sound good but do not solve the real problems of software development.

    BellSchmidt99

    1. Alex E Bell & Ryan W Schmidt
    2. UMLoquent Expression of AWACS Software Design
    3. Commun ACM V42n10(Oct 1999)pp55-61 in [Booch99]
    4. =EXPERIENCE DEMO EVOLUTION UML Boeing NMT ARCHITECTURE CORBA Ada
    5. Notes value of the UML and some weak areas in the UML and need to improvise

    BelliGrosspietsch91

    1. Fevzi Belli & Karl-E. Grosspietsch
    2. Specification of Fault-Tolerant Systems Issues by Predicate/Transition Nets and Regular Expressions -- Approach and Case Study
    3. IEEE Trans SE v17n6(Jun 1991)pp513-526
    4. Bullet proofing Technical

    BelliniFioravantiNesi99

    1. Pierfrancesco Bellini & Fabrizio Fioravanti & Paolo Nesi
    2. Managing Music in Orchestras
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V32n9(Sep 1999)pp26-34
    4. =DEMO MUSIC OBJECT-ORIENTED MOODS NETWORKED LANGUAGES HCI

    BelliniMattoliniNesi00

    1. P Bellini & R Mattolini & P Nesi
    2. Temporal Logics for Real-time system specification
    3. ACM Computing Surveys V32n1(Mar 2000) pp12-42
    4. =SURVEY LOGIC TIMING RTL RTIL RTTL
    5. WWW link to ACM Digital Library: [ p12-bellini ]
    6. From Abstract:
    7. The specification of reactive and real-time systems must be supported by formal, mathematically-founded methods in order to be satisfactory and reliable. Temporal logics have been used to this end for several years. Temporal logics allow the specification of system behavior in terms of logical formulas, including temporal constraints, events, and the relationships between the two. In the last ten years, temporal logics have reached a high degree of expressiveness. Most of the temporal logics proposed in the last few years can be used for specifying reactive systems, although not all are suitable for specifying real-time systems. In this paper we present a series of criteria for assessing the capabilities of temporal logics for the specification, validation, and verification of real-time systems. Among the criteria are the logic's expressiveness, the logic's order, presence of a metric for time, the type of temporal operators, the fundamental time entity, and the structure of time. We examine a selection of temporal logics proposed in the literature. To make the comparison clearer, a set of typical specifications is identified and used with most of the temporal logics considered, thus presenting the reader with a number of real examples.

    BellinSimone97

    1. David Bellin & Susan Suchman Simone
    2. The CRC Card Book
    3. Addison Wesley 1997 ISBN 0-201-89535-8 QA76.64 b437 1997
    4. =HOWTO CRC Object-Oriented ANALYSIS PURPOSE SCENARIO CRC DESIGN CARD ROLE-PLAY TECHNICAL Smalltalk C++ Java UML MANAGEMENT

    BellinzonaEtal95

    1. Roberto Bellinzona & Maria Grazia Fugini<fugini@ipmel1.polimi.it> & Barbara Parnici<pernici@elet.polimi.it>
    2. Reusing Specifications in OO Applications
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V12n2(Mar 1995)pp65-75
        Results: could create many process classes for a variety of applications in the banking domain, but not many documents

        Ithaca Project,

      1. IOOM::=Ithaca OO methodology.
      2. F-ORM::=Functionallity in Objects with Roles Model. object--<view>--role-->FS.ELH

        Basic problm is identifying matching components.

      3. Fuzzy matching against: verb-object, thesauri or semantic network ...., structures pairs Telos organizes knowledge in levels

        "Final document contains the set of graphical representations, the component documentation, and a trace of the steps."


    BellLabs83

    1. Unix Programmer's Manual
    2. NY NY Holt Rinehart & Winston (2 Vols)
    3. =handbook non-sequential tools pipe

    BellNewell70

    1. C Gordon Bell & Allen Newell
    2. The PMS and ISP descriptive systems for computer structure
    3. Proc AFIPS Spring Joint Comp Conf (??? 1970)pp351-374 [ PMS%20and%20ISP%20Descriptive%20Systems%201970%20c.pdf ] (PDF)
    4. =IDEA HARDWARE DESCRIPTION PMS Processor-Memory-Switch ISP Instruction-Set-Processor
    5. Also see [ BellNewell71 ] for details and examples of ISP and PMS.

    BellNewell71

    1. C Gordon Bell & Allen Newell
    2. Computer structures: Readings and examples
    3. McGraw-Hill computer science series circa 1971 ISBN 0070043574 TK7888.3.B37
    4. =EXAMPLES 1960s =SURVEY HARDWARE DESCRIPTIONS Burroughs CDC DEC PDP Deuce KDF9 IBM SDS UNIVAC

    BellonEtAl07

    1. Stefan Bellon & Rainer Koschke & Giuliano Antoniol & Jens Krinke & Ettore Merlo
    2. Comparison and Evaluation of clone detection tools
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V33n9(Sep 2007)pp577-591
    4. =EXPERIMENT TOOLS COPYPASTE DRY SOURCE Dup CloneDR CCFinder Duplix CLAN Duploc
    5. Also see [BakerB07]

    Ben-AbdallahEtal97

    1. Hanene BenAbdallah & Insup Lee & Young Si Kim
    2. The Integrated Specification and Analysis of Functional, Temporal, and Resource Requirements [RE'97] pp198-209
    3. =DEMO TOOLS REQUIREMENTS LANGUAGE
    4. GCSR::language="Graphical communicating Shared Resources".

    Ben-AbdallahLeue97

    1. Hanene BenAbdallah & S Leue
    2. Timing Constraints in Message Sequence Chart Specifications
    3. See [ tr97-04 in msc ]
    4. =REPORT SCENARIO TIMING MSC SPECIFICATIONS
    5. MSC::="Message Sequence Charts"

    Ben-ShaulHolderLavva01

    1. Israel Ben-Shaul & Ophir Holder & Boris Lavva
    2. Dynamic Adaptation and Deployment of Distributed Components in Hadas
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V27n9(Sep 2001)pp769-787
    4. =DEMO TECHNICAL DISTRIBUTED DYNAMIC MODULE HADAS JAVA
    5. Ways and means of allowing software components to be changed, moved, and remotely administrated.
    6. Component interfaces have a fixed and a dynamic part.
    7. Using reflection and introspection so that components can find out about each other -- but purpose and qualities are only described informally.

    BenamatiLederer01

    1. John Benamati & Albert L Lederer
    2. Coping with rapid changes in IT
    3. Commun ACM V44n8(Aug 2001)pp83-88
    4. =POLL TECHNICAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT
    5. Change is constant and is the most effective coping strategies are not applied.
    6. Low cost learning is preferred.
    7. Popular but ineffective: self education and bullying the vendor for support.
    8. Unpopular but effective: consider new technology that is compatible with current, incentives to keep staff who know the new stuff, choose specific customized training not general informal education.
    9. Review, think, plan, do, review, ....

    Benbunnan-Fich02

    1. Raquel Benbunnan-Fich
    2. Improving Education and Training with IT
    3. Commun ACM V45n6(Jun 2002)pp94-99
    4. =SURVEY EDUCATION IDEA GRID
    5. Education location><pedagogy><synchronocity.
    6. location:= proximate..disperesed.
    7. synchronocity:= synchronous..Asynchroonous
    8. Pedagogy:=objectivist..Constructivist
    9. Computer aided discussion etc makes no difference to mastery of topic(grades) but can effect what students feel.

    BenlarbiMelo99

    1. Sa"ida Benlarbi & Walcelio L Melo
    2. Polymorphism Measures for Early Risk Detection
    3. ICSE'99, Proceeedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (May 1999)pp334-344
    4. =EMPIRICAL METRIC LALO Logistic Regression
    5. relates measures of polymorphism with other metrics and fault proneness.
    6. Polymorphism may increase fault proneness but not significantly. Static and dynamic polymorphism are similar. Both correlated to numbers of methods but not LOC.
    7. See [BriandEtal99]

    Bennett92

    1. William S Bennett
    2. Visualising Software: A graphical notation for analysis design and discussion
    3. Marcel Dekker NY NY 1992

    Benson93

    1. David B Benson
    2. Comparative Review of books on Category Theory for Computer Science
    3. Computing Reviews V34n11(Nov 1993)pp577-579 (CR9311-0833)
    4. =SURVEY CATEGORY Sets out a reading program.

    Bentley84

    1. J Bentley
    2. Programming Pearls:Code Tuning
    3. Commun ACM v27 n2 (Feb 1984) pp91-96
    4. =CLASSIC BOOK optimization PERFORMANCE Technical

    Bentley86

    1. J Bentley
    2. Programming Pearls
    3. Addison Wesley Reading MA 1986
    4. =CLASSIC BOOK case-study Technical
    5. Also Knuth92

    Bentley87

    1. Jon Bentley
    2. More Programming Pearls: Confessions of a Coder
    3. Addison Wesley ma 1987
    4. =case-study Technical

    Bentley93

    1. Jon Bentley
    2. Do-It-Yourself Caching
    3. UNIX Review V11n10(Oct 1993)pp95-104
    4. =CAST-STUDY data performance case-study Technical

    Berard89

    1. Edward V Berard <sei!ajpo!eberard@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
    2. Re: Attempts to connect SAD and OOPS
    3. Software-Engineering-Digest/comp.soft.eng V6n37 & n40 & n42 Usenet/Internet 1989 + Personal communication(course notes 1989)
    4. =CORRESPONDENCE object-oriented SAD Technical Semantic nets+STD+Petrie Nets

    Berard93

    1. Edward V Berard (Berard Software Engineering)
    2. Essays on Object-oriented software engineering (vol 1)
    3. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ 1993
    4. ISBN0-13-288895-5 CR9502-0058(comparative)

    BergClineGirou95

    1. William Berg & Marshall Cline & Mike Girou
    2. Lessons Learned from the OS/400 OO Project
    3. Commun ACM V38n10(Oct 1995)pp54-64
    4. =EXPERIENCE REQRITE OBJECT_ORIENTED OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE
        rewriting a large piece of system software for a new platform.

        150 people almost all coding, feb92..94, 2MLOC C++ 14K classes, 142Kattributes 90K methods, 10K children, 5k overloaded method names. Use R/6000AIX/Motif. two days to compile and link. 10 minutes per class. Used Booch (all but one S_M team) increased functionallity and flexibillity heightened management. LOC tracked project but quality and delivery-on-time rewarded developers.

        Iterative and incremental life cycle. Used a weekly build cycle. encouraged defensive coding and defect avoidance and preserving interface stability. Should have had recesses every three months when work is frozen and reveiwed. Wanted more incentives for code reviews, detailed documentation, internal consistency checks, and separate est teams.

        classroom training: 120 hours OOA, design, patterns, programming + 50% design sessions with mentor. Spread out and reinforced. it takes application to learn to do inheritance correctly. 6 to 9 months before they get fully proficient in the new paradigm: 80% ok coders, 15% respectable journeyman designers, 5% top performaers at analysis and design. Biggest culture shift was from code to design.

        Put best talent to work on tuning RAM and speed.

        Systems requirements should include explicit flexibillity/extensibility criteria: Requirements Mutation Analysis. Use lowtech tools first, when design session ideas slow down then use computer-based tools to capture the ideas. Keep a strong link between requirements and design decisions.

        Code bloat and instruction count goals. Each path through code had a goal of so many instructions.

        Multiple inheritence not used much.

        Integration with old upper level code because it made numerous undocumented assumptions about entry points into new code.


    BerenbachBroy09

    1. Brian Berenbach & Manfred Broy
    2. Professional and Ethical Dilemmas in Software Engineering
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V42n1(Jan 2008)pp74-80
    4. =ESSAY ETHICS NAMEs DILEMMAS MITIGATION IEEE ACM
    5. Named dilemmas
      1. Mission impossible
      2. Mea Culpa
      3. Rush Job
      4. Not My Problem
      5. Red lies
      6. Fictionware versus vaporware
      7. non-diligence
      8. Cancelled vacation
      9. Sweep it under the rug

    6. Proposes mitigation strategies.
    7. Failures of the ACM and IEEE Codes of Professional Behavior.
    8. Notes likely criminal behaviors: Negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, depraved indifference.
    9. Ethical dilemmas tend to be yoked, chained, or coupled.... and this magnifies the damage.

    Berghel01

    1. Hal Berghel
    2. The Code Red Worm
    3. Commun ACM V44n12(Dec 2001)pp15-19
    4. =ARTICLE RISK TECHNICAL CODE buffer overflow Microsoft IIS web-server DLL

    Berghel05

    1. Hal Berghel
    2. The Two Sides of ROI: Return on investment vs Risk of incarceration
    3. Commun ACM V48n4(Apr 2005)pp15-20
    4. =ESSAY RISK PRIVACY SECURITY ETHICS PROFESSION LEGISLATION HIPPAA GLB SOX New 2000 legislation puts CIOs and CEOs at risk of prosecution for not making
    5. systems secure. GLB::="Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999", privacy and security of nonpublic pers onal info .
    6. SOX::="Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002", accountability
    7. Also good description of [HIPAA]

    Berghel06

    1. Hal Berghel
    2. Fungible Credentials and Next-Generation Fraud
    3. Commun ACM V49n12(Dec 2006)pp15-19
    4. =EXAMPLES FRAUD CREDENTIALS
    5. Fungible: interchangeable and universal.
    6. Better computers and printers allow the creation of a hard to doubt credential that can be used to get legitimate (but false) credentials.
    7. Figure 2 lists some anti-counterfeiting technology.

    Bergin01

    1. Joseph Bergin <jbergin@pace.edu>
    2. A Pattern Language for Initial course design
    3. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin V33n1(Mar 2001) & 32nd SIGCSE Tech Symp on Cop Sci Education (Feb 21-25 2001)pp282-286
    4. =PATTERNS EDUCATION PLAN
    5. Abandon Systems all ye that enter here.
    6. Need to Know
    7. Early Bird: identify important topics early.
    8. Spiral
    9. Lazy Professor

    Bergland81

    1. Glenn D Bergland
    2. A Guided Tour of Program Design Methodologies
    3. IEEE Computer v14(Oct 1981)pp13-37 (reprint in Chow(Ed)84)
    4. =survey Compares FD JSP DFD and Dijkstra Gries
    5. Page 241 of Chou
    6. Figs 43 and 44: Where is the Magic in the methods?

    BerglandGordon81

    1. Glenn D Bergland & ?? Gordon(Eds)
    2. Software Design Strategies(2nd Edition)
    3. IEEE Computer Soc Tutorial IEEE Cat No. EH0184-2 Los Angeles CA 1981
    4. =survey methods DDD SAD

    BerglandZave86

    1. Glen D Bergland & Pamela Zave
    2. Special Issue on Software Design Methods
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Engineering SE-12n 2 (Feb 1986)
    4. =survey object-oriented DAD JSD functional formal ADTs DFD

    BergmanMoorNelson90

    1. Merrie Bergman & James Moor & Jack Nelson
    2. The Logic Book(2nd Edn)
    3. McGraw-Hill NY NY 1990
    4. text logic using Truth trees(Schema) in ch4 and ch9 and Natural deduction in ch5 and ch10

    Berghel06

    1. Hal Berghel
    2. Fungible Credentials and Next-Generation Fraud
    3. Commun ACM V49n12(Dec 2006)pp15-19
    4. =EXAMPLES FRAUD CREDENTIALS
    5. Fungible: interchangeable and universal.
    6. Better computers and printers allow the creation of a hard to doubt credential that can be used to get legitimate (but false) credentials.
    7. Figure 2 lists some anti-counterfeiting technology.

    Berghel07

    1. Hal Berghel
    2. Better-Than-Nothing Security Practices
    3. Commun ACM V50n8(Aug 2007)pp15-18
    4. =ADVERT BTNSP SECURITY XP Browsers WiFi
    5. BTNSP::= See http://www.berghel.net/btnsp/ Simple things that users can do to improve the security of their systems... Better than doing nothing.

    BergstraPonseSmolka01e

    1. J A Bergstra& A Ponse & S A Smolka
    2. Handbook of process algebra
    3. Elsevier 2001 ISBN 0-444-82830-3, review Tucker Computer Journal V45n1(2002)pp68-69
    4. =UNREAD =Handbook algebra nonsequential CCS TCSP ACP Petri

    BergstraTucker07

    1. J Bergstra & J Tucker
    2. The rational numbers as an abstract data type
    3. JACM V54n2(Apr 2007)#7pp? CR 0808-0783
    4. =UNREAD =THEORY ADT ABSTRACT DATA CONDITIONAL EQUATIONAL SPECIFICATION Lagrange
    5. Notes [click here [socket symbol] if you can fill this hole]

    BerlingRuneson03

    1. Tomas Berling & Per Runeson Efficient Evaluation of Multifactor dependent System Performance using fractional Factorial Design
    2. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n9(Sep 2003)pp769-781
    3. =STATISTICS PERFORMANCE PROTOTYPE TESTING ACCURACY ANOVA Pareto Iterative Careful choice of a few test cases applied to a prototype allows the evaluation of the effects of many factors on the targeting performance of a radar system.

    BernardLaffite99

    1. Pascal Bernard & Guy Laffite
    2. The French Population Census for 1990
    3. In [HincheyBowen99] pp15-42
    4. =EXPERIENCE MATH Z B METHOD REQUIREMENTS GEOGRAPHY CENSUS
    5. It worked as a process and a product.

    Berns84

    1. Gerald M Berns
    2. Assessing Software Maintainability
    3. Commun ACM V27n1(Jan 1984) pp14-23
    4. =EXPERIENCE QUALITY TECHNICAL FORTRAN EVOLUTION TOOL MAT

    Bernstein80

    1. Arthur Bernstein
    2. Output Guards and Nondeterminism in "Communicating Sequential Processes"
    3. ACM TOPLAS V2n2(Apr 1980)pp234-238
    4. =THEORY CSP non-sequential NON-DETERMINISM

    Bernstein93

    1. Lawrence Bernstein(attmail!l.bernstein)
    2. Get The Design Right!
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V10n5(Sep 1993)pp61-63
      1. p 61: "...focus first on the problem domain and then on the implementation domain"
      2. controlled, evolving and validated requirements
      3. prototypes
      4. p62:
      5. nimble
      6. pay attention to detail
      7. visit the user
      8. Setup operational profiles of expected use for performance analysis and scenario testing
      9. p63: Write the specification after the prototyping and use a formal spiral-development program
      10. "no tool will replace the skill and talent of the professional software designer."

    BernsteinFitzGeraldMacdonellConcepcion05

    1. Marc Bernstein & Kelly M FitzGerald & James P Macdonell & Arturo I Concepcion
    2. AlgorithmA Project: The ten-week Mock Software Company
    3. ACM SIGCSE Tech Symp Proc (Feb 2005)pp142-146
    4. =EXPERIENCE 14.years EDUCATION PROJECT MAINTENANCE PEOPLE MANAGEMENT CSUSB CSCI488 RMT UML IEEE SRS

    BerryKamsties05

    1. Daniel M Berry & Erik Kamsties
    2. The syntactically dangerous ALL and Plural in Specifications
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V22n1(Jan /Feb 2005)pp55-57
    4. =IDEA AMBIGUITY LOGIC LANGUAGE SPECIFICATION CS565
    5. Words to suspect: "only", "all", "also", "each".
    6. Use "each" when describing a property of the individual members of a set.
    7. Use "all" for shared properties across a set.
    8. Can use simple logic to clarify an ambiguity.
    9. All the lights in the room have a single on-off switch.
      Net
      1. Each light has its own switch.
      2. For all y:lights_in_room, one x: switch (x is on_off_switch_for y).
      3. All the lights share a common switch.
      4. For one x: switch, all y:lights_in_room (x is on_off_switch_for y).

      (End of Net)

    10. Similarly for plurals: "Students enroll in six courses" vs "Students enroll in hundreds of courses".

    BersoffDavis91

    1. Edward H. Bersoff & Alan M. Davis
    2. Impacts of Life Cycle Models on Software Configuration Management
    3. Commun ACM V34n8(Aug 1991)pp104-117

    Bertolazzietal95

    1. Paola Bertolazzi & Giuseppe Di Battista & Giuseppe Liotta
    2. Parametric Graph drawing
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-21n8(Aug 1995)pp662-673
    4. The Graph Server: digraphs not diagrams - no words or icons.

    BertolinoMirandola04

    1. Antonia Bertolino & Raffaela Mirandola
    2. Software Performance Engineering of Component-based Systems
    3. WOSP'04 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V29n1(Jan 2004)pp238-242
    4. =IDEA QUALITY Performance MODULAR COMPONENT CB-SPE
    5. Based on PTS RT-UML [OMG020302].

    BertranAugeraud99

    1. Frederic Bertran & Michel Augeraud
    2. BDL: A Speicalized Language for Per-Object Reactive Control

      [WileRaming99] pp347-362

    3. =ADVERT LANGUAGE SYNTAX SEMANTOC OBJECT-ORIENTED NONSEQUENTIAL ESTEREL

    BerzalCuberoMarinVila05

    1. Fernando Berzal & Jean-Carlos Cubero & Nicolas Marin & Maria-Amparo Vila
    2. Lazy Types: Automating Dynamic Strategy Selection
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V22n5(Sep/Oct 2005)pp98-106
    4. =DEMO TECHNICAL POLYMORPHIC TYPES C# .NET
    5. Lazy types have a common interface plus varying attributes and strategies for handling the interface depending on what attributes are available.
    6. Objects gain and loose attributes as the program executes, the methods adapt auto-magically to what attributes are present.
    7. lazy_types_library::= See http://elvex.ugr.es/software/lazy/, -- proof of concept for .NET
    8. Uses hidden factory pattern and strategy pattern.

    BerzinsLuqi90

    1. Valdis Berzins & Luqi[Sic]
    2. An Introduction to the Specification Language Spec
    3. IEEE Software V7n2 pp74-84 (Mar 1990)
    4. formal

    BerzinsLuqi91

    1. Valdis Berzins & Luqi[Sic]
    2. Software Engineering with Abstractions
    3. Addison Wesley
    4. Reading Mass.1991
    5. CR9211-0842
    6. (Spec & Ada)

    BerzinsLuqiYehudai93

    1. Valdis Berzins & Luqi[Sic] & Amiram Yehudai
    2. Using Transformations in Specification-Based Prototyping
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-19n5(May 1993)pp436-452 QUALITY PURPOSE function
      1. Transformations of specifications during a project.
      2. Spec+DFDs
      3. pp442-443 Software Process
      4. p446 encapsulated user interface in module
      5. pp446-447 requirements evolve
      6. distinguish spec changes from design and implementation changes
      7. p447inheriting from older specifications
      8. p450 Distinguishing (and delaying) optimization decisions from functional requirements.

        pp458-459 distinguishing extention, contraction, refining, abstracting, relaxing, constraining by comparing Vocabulary, Granularity and Behavior.

        pp447-448: The derivation Lattice/poset to explain designs -- configuration management for specs?

        [Snelting96] [KramerLuqiBerzins93]


    Berztiss88

    1. Alfs Berztiss
    2. Programming with Generators
    3. Software - Practice and Experience V18n1pp73-81(Jan88)
    4. =IDEA non-sequential Technical

    Berztiss89

    1. Alfs Berztiss
    2. Formal Specification Methods and Visualisations
    3. in Chang89 pp231-290
    4. =SURVEY graphic DFDS ERDs(problems) JSD STD Petrie Nets Structure Diagrams

    Berztiss90

    1. Alfs Berztiss
    2. Programming with Generators: An Introduction
    3. Ellis Horwood Chichester UK 1990 ISBN 0-13-739087 CR 9211-0847
    4. =MONOGRAPH Technical pseudo-concurrency

    Betz95

    1. Mark Betz
    2. Building a CORBA Object Server
    3. Software Development Magazine(Oct 1995)pp53-61
    4. =ARTICLE TECHNICAL OBJECT-ORIENTED C/C++
    5. IDL::=Interface Definition Language
    6. ORB::=Object Request Broker

    BeugnardEtal99

    1. Antoine Beugnard & Jean-Marc Jezequel & Noel Plouzeu & Damien Watkins
    2. Making components contract aware
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V32n7(Jul 1999)pp38-45
    4. =THEORY COMPONENTS RELIABILITY QUALITY
    5. 1:IDL=syntax, 2: pre/post=behavioral, 3:synchronization, 4:quality-of-service

    BeyerHoltzblatt94

    1. Hugh R Beyer & Karen Holtzblatz
    2. Calling Down the Lightening
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V11n5(Sep 1994)pp106-107+113
    4. =History Bricklin spreadsheet requirements design users
    5. roadblocks to creativity::= separating requirements gathering from system design | products = list of features | FEAR(engineers talking to customers | people working together| new ideas |"it can't work")

    BeyerHoltzblatt95

    1. Hugh R Beyer & Karen Holtzblatz
    2. Apprenticing with the Customer
    3. Commun ACM V38n5(May 1995)pp45-52
    4. =EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
      1. "sit by Nelly" and then ask questions
      2. reveals: what matters, details, structure
      3. events lead to discussions
      4. master can transfer years of experience quicker
      5. Then designer works out structure
        1. articulate understanding
        2. is there to improve work
        3. must have a specific focus

      6. Beware
        1. other relationships: interviewer, expert, friend
        2. being abstract: things that are unsaid...ASK!
        3. polite ways of saying "no, you are wrong": "Huh?", "Ummm...maybe", "Yes, but..."


    BeyerNoackLewerentz05

    1. Dirk Beyer & Andreas Noack & Claus Lewerentz
    2. Efficient Relational Calculation for Software Analysis
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V31n2(Feb 2005)pp137-149
    4. =TOOL RELATIONAL LOGIC RML BDD TECHNICAL PATTERN JAVA CrocoPat
    5. Faster recognition of patterns in class structures tested faster on real code: JDK AWT, Eclipse,... Than Prolog and MySQL.

    Bhansali93

    1. P V Bhansali
    2. Survey of software safety standards shows diversity
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V26n1(Jan 1993)pp88-89
    4. =SURVEY STANDARDS RISKS
      1. UK MoD: Int Def Stan 00-55 (Formal)
      2. UK MoD: Int Def Stan 00-56 (Hazard Analysis)
      3. Instrument Soc America SP84(draft)
      4. US DoD: Mil-Std-882B(Notice 1)
      5. IEEE CS: P1228(Draft) (Safety plan)
      6. Radio Tech Comm Aero/DO-178A
      7. Int Elect Comm(industrial: SC 65A/WG9... EIA: SEB 6-A UL: UL1998(Draft)
      8. FDA: Control of medical devices

        General

      9. Identify and classify systems hazards
      10. Identify system function allocated to software
      11. Identify hazards related to software
      12. Design to reduce or eliminate hazards
      13. (sw and credible hw)
      14. Implement SW
      15. Verify hazards at acc level and no new hazards
      16. Config management and SQA throughout

    BhatGuptaMurthy06

    1. Jyoti M Bhat & Mayank Gupta & Santhosh N Murthy
    2. Overcoming Requirements Challenges: Lessons from Offshore Outsourcing
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V23n5(Sep/Oct 2006)pp38-44
    4. =CASE STUDIES 9 + THEORY RE Requirements SHARING TRUST
    5. Problems in case studies can be avoided by success factors and best practices.
    6. Success factors: shared goals, culture, process, and responsibility. Plus trust.
    7. Lists best practices for people, process, and technology.
    8. No technology to promote trust!

    BhattiBerinoGafoorJoshi04

    1. Rafae Bhatti & Ellsa Berino & Arif Gafoor & James B D Joshi
    2. XML-based specification for web services
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V37n4(Apr 2004)pp41-49
    4. =IDEA WWW SECURITY XML RBAC XUS XRS
    5. RBAC::= "role based access control".
    6. XUS::= "XML user sheet", credentials.
    7. XRS::= XML role sheet.
    8. etc.

    BianchiEtal03

    1. Alessandro Bianchi & Danilo Caivino & Vittorio Marengo & Giuseppe Visaggio
    2. Iterative re-engineering of Legacy Systems
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n3(Mar 2003)pp225-241
    4. =EXPERIENCE MAINTENANCE COBOL REENGINEER REFACTOR DATA
    5. Compare mean time to maintenance request to estimated time to reengineer module.
    6. Fig 4 has incorrect UML

    BiancuzziWarden09

    1. Federico Biancuzzi & Shane Warden
    2. Masterminds of Programming: Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages
    3. O'Reilly Media 2009 ISBN 0596515170
    4. =UNREAD =INTERVIEWS PROGRAMMERS PEOPLE CODING TECHNICAL LANGUAGES CSCI320
    5. Please send me your comments [ contribute.html ] to see them here.

    BicarreguiRitchie95

    1. Juan Bicarregui & Brian Ritchie
    2. Invariants, frames and Postconditions: A comparison of the VDM & B Notations
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-21n2(Feb 1995)pp79-89
    4. =CASE-STUDY FORMAL LANGUAGES SPECIFICATION

    BichlerLin06

    1. Martin Bichler & Kwei-Jay Lin
    2. Service Oriented Computing
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n3(Mar 2006)pp99-101
    4. =ADVERT SERVICES NET/WEB WORKFLOW SEMANTICS QoS WSDL OWL-S ONTOLOGY SOC BSN BPEL BPML

    Bidoitetal91

    1. Michel Bidoit & Hans-Jorg Kreowski & Piere Lescanne & Fernando Orejas & Donals Sannella
    2. Algebraic System Specification and Development
    3. Springer Verlag NY NY 1991(Lecture Notes in CS V501)
    4. =SURVEY =BIBLIOGRAPHY THEORY FORMAL ALGEBRA SPECIFICATION
    5. Short!

    BiemanKang95

    1. James M Bieman(bieman@cs.colostate.edu) & Byung-Kyoo Kang
    2. Cohesion and Reuse in an Object Oriented System [SamadzadehZand95] pp259-262
    3. =EXPERIENCE OBJECT-ORIENTED REUSE C/C++ EXPERIENCE
    4. New measure of cohesion for a class - degree to which methods use the same fields. Most classes a quite cohesive. Classes reused by inheritance most are clearly of lower cohesion.

    BiemanKang98

    1. James M Bieman & Byung-Kyoo Kang
    2. Measuring Design-Level Cohesion
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng V24n2(Feb 1998)pp111-124
    4. =IDEA =EXPERIMENT DESIGN MODULE METRICS
    5. DLC::="Design-Level Cohesion".
    6. DFC::="Design-level Functional Cohesion".
    7. IODG::="Input/output dependence graph".

    BiemanOtt94

    1. James M Bieman & Linda M Ott
    2. Measuring Functional Cohesion
    3. IEEE trans on Soft Eng vSE-20n8(Aug 1994)pp644-657
    4. =THEORY METRICS MODULARIZATION COHESION

    BiemanZhao95

    1. James M Bieman(bieman@cs.colostate.edu) & Josephine Xia Zhao
    2. Reuse Through Inheritance: A Quantitive study of C++ Software [SamadzadehZand95] pp47-52
    3. Inheritance is used far less frequently than expected

    BiemanJainYang01

    1. James M Bieman & Dolly Jain & Helen J Yang
    2. OO design patterns, design structures, and program changes: an industrial case study
    3. 17th IEEE International Conf on Sw Maintenance ICSM'01 ( 2001)pp580+ CR 0511+1249 [ ICSM.2001.972775 ]
    4. =experience evolution object-oriented GoF patterns metrics

    5. 39 versions of evolving industrial OO software
    6. Strong relationship -- larger classes were changed more frequently
    7. Classes that participate in design patterns were the most change prone.
    8. Classes that are reused the most through inheritance tend to be changed more often.

    Biffl00

    1. Stefan Biffl
    2. Using Inspection Data for Defect Estimation
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V17n6(Nov/Dec 2000)pp36-43
    4. =EXPERIMENT DEFECTS INSPECTION ESTIMATION 200+students
    5. Capture-Recapture model of number of defects vs number found by different numbers of inspectors.
    6. Best to assume that different defects have different chances of being detected, but that inspectors are all equally likely.

    Billingsetal94

    1. C Billings & J Clifton & B Kolkhorst & E Lee & W B Wingert
    2. Journey to a mature software process
    3. IBM Systems Jnl V33n1(1994)pp46-61
    4. =EXPERIENCE HISTORY IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS QUALITY V&V PROCESS EVOLUTION
    5. Shuttle Onboard Software System. See

      [Oman94] [MaddenRhone84] [ Billingsetal94.html ]

    BimboCampanaiNesi93

    1. Alberto Del Bimbo & Maurizio Campanai & Paolo Nesi
    2. A Three-Dimensional Iconic Environment for Image Database Querying
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-19n10(Oct 1993)pp977-1011 Graphics
        p1002 spatial relations and operators
      1. strictly_after, after_with_right_adjacency, after
      2. is_included_by with left_adjacency, includes with right_adjacency
      3. includes, spatial-coincidence, isinclude_by, includes with left adjacent
      4. before, before with left adjacency, strictly_before

    Binder94

    1. Robert V Binder(guest Editor)
    2. Object-Oriented Software Testing(Special edition)
    3. Commun ACM V37n9(Sep 1994)pp28-101
    4. =EDITORIAL OBJECTS SQA TESTING

    Binder95

    1. Robert V Binder(guest Editor)
    2. Scenario-Basesd Testing for Client Server Systems
    3. Software Development Magazine(Aug 1995)pp43-49
    4. SQA SCENARIO
    5. cf Operational Profiles in Musa93(CLEANROOM)

    BinkleyEtal06

    1. David Binkley & Mariano Ceccato & Mark Harman & Filippo Ricca & Paolo Tonella
    2. Tools-Supported refactoring of existing Object-Oriented code into aspects
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V32n9(Sep 2006)pp698-717
    4. =DEMO TOOL MAINTENANCE REFACTOR ASPECTS
    5. Has a useful list of refactorings which may or may not be complete.
    6. The extract repeated code into an aspect: DRY.

    BirdEtAl09

    1. Christian Bird & Nachiappan Nagappan & Premkumar Devanbu & Harald Gall & Brendan Murphy
    2. Does Distributed Development Affect Software quality? An Empirical Case study of windows Vista
    3. Commun ACM V52n8(Aug 2009)pp- [ 1536616.1536639 ]
    4. =EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTED PROCESS QUALITY MS Vista
    5. Little evidence that having a team spread over two continents gives worse code than being in the same building.
    6. Size of team does have an effect.
    7. (dick)|-They did not check to see if the distributed team compensated for distance be special processes or tools.

    BisbalEtal99

    1. Jesus Bisbal & Deirdre Lawless & Bing Wu & Jane Grimson
    2. Legacy Information Systems: Issusesd and Directions
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V16n5(Sep/Oct 1999)pp103-111
    4. =DESCRIPTION EVOLUTION DATA LIS Chicken-Little and Chrysalys Strategies

    Bishop90

    1. Judy M Bishop
    2. The Effect of Data Abstraction on Loop Programming Techniques
    3. IEEE Trans SE-16n4pp389-402(Apr 1990)
    4. ADTs non-sequential Technical

    BishopP02

    1. Pete G Bishop
    2. Rescaling Reliability Bounds for a New Operational Profile
    3. Proc ISSTA02 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V27n4(Jul 2002)pp180-190
    4. =THEORY PROBABILITY FAILURE TESTING
    5. If faults are removed as they are found by a fixed operational profile without effecting other faults and probability of a faults is constant with time T then P(failure per test | test number=T) <=N/(e * T) if there are N faults.
    6. Reason: errors that are probable are found quickly, less probable once are less likely to happen.
    7. This formula can be adjusted to allow for changes in the operational profile.
    8. Results fit PODS TRIPV testing.

    BishopWagner07

    1. Matt Bishop & David Wagner
    2. Risks of E-Voting
    3. Commun ACM V50n11(Nov 2007)p120
    4. =REPORT TECHNICAL SOURCE CODE REVIEW VIRAL RISKS SECURITY QUALITIES
    5. The authors found buffer overruns, hard-coded encryption keys, dumb pseudo-encryption, dumb passwords etc. in all voting systems.
    6. Federal tests did not disclose the flaws. Code review did.
    7. Voting systems must be transparent.
    8. Need for audits.

    BitnerReingold75

    1. James R Bitner & Edward M Reingold
    2. Backtrack Programming Techniques
    3. Commun ACM V18n11 pp651-656(Nov 1975)
    4. =survey non-sequential optimization Technical

    Bittner02

    1. Kurt Bittner
    2. Use Case Modeling
    3. Addison-Wesley Longman Boston MA ISBN 0201709139 [CR] 0305-0414
    4. =HANDBOOK USECASE USER REQUIREMENTS

    BittnerSpence03

    1. Kurt Bittner& Ian Spence
    2. Use case modeling
    3. Pearson Education Boston MA 2003
    4. =HOWTO REQUIREMENTS USECASE
    5. Synthesize understandable models of complex requirement details.
    6. Communication, simplicity, stakeolders, write details, Good enough.
    7. Dangers of relationships between use cases.
    8. How to write abstract cases(with a "{hole}") and their specializations(with an "at{hole}").

    BiZhao04

    1. Henry H Bi & J Zhao
    2. Applying propositional logic to workflow verification
    3. Information Technology and ManagementV5n3-4(Jul wppr)pp293-318 CR 0605-0526
    4. =UNREAD =THEORY WORKFLOW VERIFICATION LOGIC [click here [socket symbol] if you can fill this hole]

    Bjorkander00

    1. Morgan Bjo"rkander
    2. Graphical Programming Using UML and SDL
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n12(Dec 2000)pp30-35
    4. =IDEA UML SDL DYNAMIC FSM/STD MODEL TECHNICAL GRAPHIC
    5. p34:"Code is generally considered king, and the model as its poor country cousin."

    BjorkanderKobryn03

    1. Morgan Bjorkander & Cris Kobryn
    2. Architecting Systems with UML 2,0
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n4(Jul/Aug 2003)pp57-61
    4. =ADVERT PORT INTERFACE ACTIONS EXECUTABLE MODELING UML2.0
    5. Classes can have ports(square boxes on border). Ports have interfaces.
    6. Ports can be behavioral.
    7. Interfaces(lollipops) are either required (half circle) or provided interfaces(half circle).
    8. Ports can be connected: required to provided interfaces.
    9. Statemachines, interactions, and activities all can actions.
    10. Actions can be given precise -- executable -- semantics.

    Bjorner06

    1. Dines Bjorner
    2. Software Engineering 1, 2 and 3
    3. Springer-Verlag NY Secaucus NJ ISBN 3540211497 CR 0802-0113
    4. =UNREAD =ADVERT =EXAMPLES FORMAL DOMAIN MODEL REALITY RSL ABSTRACTION

    BjornerGeorgePrehn99

    1. Dines Bjorner & Chris George & Soren Prehn
    2. Scheduling and Rescheduling Trains
    3. In [HincheyBowen99] pp157-184 [ http://www.iist.unu.edu ]
    4. =EXPERIENCE DEMO FORMAL SPECIFICATION PROTOTYPING PRaCoSy lightweight RAISE RSL C train dispatching

    BjornerJones82

    1. ?? Bjorner & ?? Jones
    2. Formal Specification & Software Development
    3. Prentice Hall NJ 1982
    4. =ADVERT VDM formal language Technical

    Black95

    1. George Black
    2. British Government Puts New GUIs to the Test
    3. Software Magazine (May 1995)pp82-84
    4. =EXPERIENCE SSADM GRAPHIC USER GUI
    5. UK Customs & Excise Dept.
    6. SSADM (pre Vn4) not good for GUIs... using IEEE standards instead

    Blaha04

    1. Michael Blaha
    2. A Copper Bullet for software Quality Improvement
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V37n2(Feb 2004)pp21-25
    4. =EXPERIENCE 11 years DATA MODEL REVERSE ENGINEERING QUALITY SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
    5. (1) how to grade a data base: ABCDF
    6. (2) expects grade of data base to be related to overall quality of software.
    7. (3) companies that do not allow there data base design to be reviewed automatically scores badly.
    8. Give a good list of common data defects.
    9. Figure 2 has a small UML error: switched multiplicities.

    BlahaPremerlaniShen94

    1. Michael R. Blaha & William J Premerlani & Hwa Shen
    2. Converting OO Models into RDBMS Schema
    3. IEEE Software magazine v11n3(May 1994)pp28-39
    4. =ADVERT OBJECT_ORIENTED OMT DATA
    5. OMT is Figure A on pages 34-35 [Premerlanietal90] [PremerlaniBlaha94]

    BlahaPremerlani98

    1. Michael R. Blaha &William J Premerlani
    2. Object-Orietented Modeling and Design for Database Applications
    3. Prentice-Hall NJ 1997
    4. =MANUAL OBJECT-ORIENTED OOA/OOD DATA UML BNF for Object Navigation Notation [BlahaPremerlaniShen94]

    BlahaSmith02

    1. Michael Blaha & Cheryl Smith
    2. A Pattern for Softcoded Values
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V35n5(May 2002)pp28-34
    4. =DEMO dynamic data types metamodel reflection
    5. Moves in the opposite orientation to objects!
    6. How to code an generalization hierarchy of attributes and values in data. : DescribedObjects and DescribedObjecTypes.
    7. Data use to Model attributes, values, units, constraints, generalization, etc
    8. Values include sources and dates: entry, effective, expiration.
    9. Does not handle behavioral inheritance.
    10. Each Value has a field for numeric datum AND string datum AND datetime datum. Constrained by ode so that only one is non-null!
    11. All generalizations has a discriminator attribute.

    Blank89

    1. GD Blank
    2. A Finite & Real-Time Processor for Natural Language
    3. Commun ACM v32 n10(Oct 1989)
    4. =DEMO DDD

    Blaschek94

    1. Gunther Blaschek
    2. Object-oriented programming with prototypes
    3. Springer-Verlag NY NY 1994 ISBN 0-387-56469-1 CR9502-0058
    4. =DEMO Objects without classes! Omega for the Macintosh

    BleisteinEtal87

    1. Sandra Bleistein & Robert Goetge & Frank Petroski & Robert Wiseman
    2. Capacity Management of Air Traffic Control Computer Systems.
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V20n2 (Feb 1987)pp73-83
    4. =EXPERIENCE FAA AAS PERFORMANCE

    Blikle77

    1. Andrzej Blikle
    2. Co-Routines and Networks of Parallel Processes
    3. Proc IFIP 77 (North Holland Pub Co 1977) pp285-290. Also IRIA Raport de Recherche No 202 Nov 76
    4. =THEORY LOGIC SEMANTICS REGULAR-EXPRESSIONS

    Bliss42

    1. Charles K Bliss
    2. Semantography ( Blissymbolics) 2nd Edn
    3. Semantography ( Blissymbolics), Sydney Australia 1942 [ http://www.semantography.com/ ]
    4. =ADVERT GRAPHIC SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE GENERAL SEMANTICS RATIONALITY LOGIC
    5. Explains BlissSymbolics.
    6. Argues that Semantography helps spot crooked thinking and false arguments.
    7. Bliss Symbols include all internationally agreeed symbols: Math, Chem, Music,...
    8. Dictionary of symbols [ http://www.semantography.com/4/ ]

    Blood04

    1. Rebecca Blood
    2. How Blogging Software reshapes the online community
    3. Commun ACM V47n12(Dec 2004)pp53-55
    4. =ANECDOTE SOFTWARE BLOG
    5. Software tools change the way things are done and what words mean in powerful ways.

    Bloom83

    1. S L Bloom
    2. Algebraic Solution of a System of Recursion Equations in Infinite Trees Other Contraction Theories
    3. Journal of Computer & System Science 1983 pp225-255
    4. =THEORY TOPOLOGY

    BloomBEtal00

    1. Bard Bloom & Jim Russell & John Vlissides & Mark Wegman
    2. High-level Program Development
    3. Dr. Dobbs Special Report (Dec 2000)pp17-2
    4. =ADVERT TOOLs IBM DOMAIN MODEL WORKFLOW vs PERFORMANCE
    5. Enterprise Builder, Hyper/J, Dynamic Application Partitioning (DAP)

    BloomChengDsouza97

    1. Bard Bloom & Allan Cheng & Ashvin Dsouza
    2. Using a Protean Language to Enhance expresiveness in Specifications
    3. IEEE Trans Softw Eng VSE23n4(Apr 1997)pp224-234
    4. Using structural Operational semantics to construct and extend specification languages including CCS Z Petri nets. GSOS Simple BDD-based model checking. philosphers & lifts

    BloomEsik93

    1. Stephen L Bloom & Zoltan Esik
    2. Iteration Theories: Equational Logic of Iterative Processes
    3. EATCS monographs on Theoretical Computer Science Springer Verlag NY NY 1993 ISBN 0-387-56378-4 CR9505-0287 630 pages $109.00 Hardcover
    4. =MATHEMATICAL LOGIC ALGEBRA SEMANTICS
        Blurb: detailed investigation of the fixpoint/iteration operation. Universal Algebra. Correctness logic is a special case of the equational logic of Iteration theories. Ten year program... see Bloom83 CR9505-0287: categegory theory, slow and casual, nonstandard power functor, doesn't discuss dynamic algebras, algebras with star, action algebras, or process algebras.

    BloomfieldFroome86

    1. R E Bloomfield & P K D Froome
    2. The Application of Formal Methods to the Assessment of High Integrity Software
    3. IEEE Trans SE-12n9 (Sep 1986)pp988-993
    4. =CASE-STUDY Prolog VDL QUALITY

    Blum87

    1. Bruce I Blum
    2. A Paradigm for Developing Information Systems
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng VSE-13n4(Apr 1987)pp432-439
    4. =ADVERT DATA METHOD TEDIUM
    5. TEDIUM: all info about application is in data base(ADB) and product is generated automatically from database(FAP)
    6. Experiences: Used John Hopkins since 1980
    7. Demo on COCOMO example shows strong productivity increase(time ten times less!)

    Blum92

    1. Bruce I Blum
    2. Software Engineering: A Holistic View
    3. Oxford University Press London UK 1992 ISBN 0-19-507159-X $50 pp588
    4. Very positive reveiw by Dave Hurley(U Pittsburg) p113 IEEE Software Magazine July 1993 (RS100). Moderate review by Vaclav Rajlich(Wayne State U) p102 IEEE Computer Aug 1994

    Blum94

    1. Bruce I Blum
    2. A Taxonomy of Software Development Methods
    3. Commun ACM V37n11(Nov 1994)pp82-94 CR9602-0143
    4. history(pp84-90) methods
        Design methods include analysis...code. All based on ideas started in 1968-1977. No clear dividing lines between successive activities shift from life cycle to process Destinguishes: descriptive models("conceptual")(give guidance) from prescriptive models("formal")(establish criteria). and: problem oriented(focus on understanding the problem/solution) from product oriented(correct transformation from a prescription to a maintainable implementation). Four categories. problem oriented prescriptive models have potential automatic support for product oriented formal problem oriented tend to be descriptive and prescriptive tend to be product oriented.

        Mentions levels of abstraction, virtual machines, SWR, functional decomposition, structured design, coupling, cohesion, structure chart, information hiding, structured programming, proofs of correctness, algebraic specification, ADTs, structured analyisi, DFDs PSL/PSA, ERM(ERD), STD. petrie nets, warnier LCS (not LCP), JSP, JSD, VDM (not Z), OOP, OOA, Modern structured analysis, no silver bullets. ?? mathematical means top-down? isomorphism between problem and solution tension in development between need for subjective designs and formal programs.... top-down vs outside in, data flow vs data structure.


    Blum95

    1. Bruce I Blum
    2. Beyond Programming to a New Era of Design
    3. Oxford University Press 1995
    4. ISBN 0-19-509160 $40 CR9610-0771 reccommended in IEEE Software Mag July/Aug 1995
    5. =IDEA POSTMODERN

    Blythetal90

    1. David Blyth & Cornella Boldyreff & Clive Ruggles & Nik Tetteh-Lartey
    2. The Case for Formal Methods in Standards
    3. IEEE Software V7n5(sep 1990)

    Boasson93

    1. Maarten Boasson<boasson@hgl.signaal.nl>(Thomson)
    2. Exploding Complexity may be our own Fault(Insider Column)
    3. IEEE Software(Mar 1993)p12.
        ...TODO/0 Structure text Sent EMail, see Clippings....

    Bochenski89

    1. B Bochenski
    2. Importance of Optimization
    3. Software Magazine (Nov 1989) p79(Box)
    4. =IDEA data QUALITY

    Bochmann88

    1. Gregor von Bochmann
    2. Delay-Independent Design for Distributed Systems
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng VSE-14n8(Aug 1988)pp1229-1237
    4. =THEORY non-sequential STD/FSM timing theory
    5. regularity::=removing delays leads to equivalent states

    BochmannVerjus87

    1. Gregor von Bochmann & J P Verjus
    2. Some Comments on "Transition-Oriented" Versus "Structured" Specification of Distributed Algorithms and Protocols
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng VSE-13n4(Apr 1987)pp501-505
    4. =ESSAY reinvents JSP inversion in context of LOTOS SDL Estelle etc NONSEQUENTIAL

    Bock03

    1. Conrad Bock
    2. UML without Pictures
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V20n5(Sep/Oct 2003)pp33-
    4. =DEMO MODEL REPOSITORY UML2.0 SEMANTICS COMPILATION ACTIVITY
    5. Shows how a C++ function is represented by an activity diagram and by collection of objects (mini data base)that model the diagram -- a repository

    Bock05

    1. Conrad Bock
    2. UML 2 Activity and Action Models Part 6: Structured Activities
    3. JOT V4n3(May-Jun 2005) [ column4 ]
    4. =HOWTO UML2.0 STRUCTURE ACTIVITY interrupts exceptions REPOSITORY MODEL

    BockleClemensMcGregorMuthigSchmid04

    1. G|nter Bvckle & Paul Clemens & John D McGregor & Dirk Muthig & Klaus Schmid
    2. Calculating ROI for Software product lines
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V21n3(May/Jun 2004)pp23-31
    4. =DIALOG MATHEMATICS COSTS REUSE

    Boddie87

    1. John Boddie
    2. Crunch Mode
    3. Yourdon Press/Prentice Hall NJ 1987
    4. =HANDBOOK lifecycle SAD PURPOSE QUALITY

    BodinGordonLoeb05

    1. Lawrence D Bodin & Lawrence A Gordon & Martin P Loeb
    2. Evaluating information security using the analytic hierarchy process
    3. Commun ACM V48n2(Feb 2005)pp79-83
    4. =ADVERT AHP SECURITY QUALITIES TRADEOFFS COTS DECISIONS
    5. AHP [Saaty80]

    BodolfKingBen-Menachem05

    1. David Bodolf & Patrick C K King & Mordechai Ben-Menachem
    2. Web Metadata Standards: Observations and Prescriptions
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V22n1(Jan /Feb 2005)pp78-85
    4. =ESSAY WEB STANDARDS METADATA ONTOLOGIES AI Table 1 page 80: List of standards: ebXML, CPP, WSDL, UDDI, SOAP, WS-Security, P3P, DC, CIMI, OWL. Suggests
      1. Don't ignore testing, SQA and other long standing problems.
      2. Don't target a standard at too many purposes/uses.
      3. To find things may need meta-meta-data. Need tools to support search and navigation through classifications and thesau rus hierarchies.
      4. Don't add useless indexing. Don't work at too high a level and allow too much freedom at more concrete lev els. Conventional ontologies should be limited to narrow domains until more reliable methods to develop ontologies are developed.

    Boegh08

    1. Jorgen Boegh
    2. A New Standard for Quality Requirements
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V25n2(MAr/Apr 2008)pp60-
    4. =STANDARD QUALITIES MANAGEMENT MODEL MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION ISO/IEC 25030 SQuaRE
    5. ISO 9126 Quality model{ {External, Internal}><{Functionality, Reliability, Usability, Maintainability, Portability}, Quality in Use {Effectiveness, Productivity, Safety, satisfaction }}
    6. Distinguish: computer system, mechanical part, Human process.
    7. Computer system: hardware, software, and data -- all with qualities.
    8. Stakeholder needs ->(definition)->Stakeholder requirements ->(Analysis)-> System Requirements.
    9. Many more details...

    Boehm80a

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Software engineering - as it is
    3. See FreemanLewis80 pp 149-179
    4. =survey

    Boehm80b

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Software Engineering Economics
    3. Prentice Hall International 1980
    4. =TEXT QUALITY ENGINEERING costs

    Boehm87

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Industrial Software Metrics Top Ten List
    3. IEEE Software V4n5(Sep 1987)pp84-85
    4. =EXPEREINCE QUALITY

    Boehm96

    1. Barry Boehm(USC)
    2. Helping students Learn Requirements Engineering(abstract)
    3. Preliminary program conf on Softw Eng Education April 1996
    4. =EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
    5. "Many software engineering courses (and methods) begin with an assumption that software requirements are presented to software engineers in a complete
    6. consistent
    7. feasible
    8. testable
    9. and traceable form
    10. and that the software engineer's main job is to correctly transform the requirements into code. This is generally an unhealthy approach
    11. as the requirements for virually alll significant software products are to some degree unknown
    12. unknowable
    13. or the results of compromises requiring the software engineer's participation and expertise."

    Boehm99

    1. Barry Boehm(USC)
    2. Making RAD Work for Your Project
    3. IEEE Computer V32n3(Mar 1999)pp113-114+117
    4. =ESSAY Types of RAD: DRAD(Bumb RAD=deathmarch).. SAIV(Schedule as Independent Variable) etc etc. See USC-CSE-99-512 on [ electronicopy.html ] for PDF formatted extended version

    Boehm00

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Unifying Software Engineering and Systems Engineering
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n3(Mar 2000)pp114-116
    4. =IDEA SYSTEMS QUALITY determine ARCHITECTURE + COST REQUIREMENTS should be part of SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

    Boehm00

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Requirements that handle IKIWISI, COTS, and rapid change
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n7(Jul 2000)pp99-102
    4. =ESSAY REQUIREMENTS EVOLUTION INFORMATION HIDING INCREMENTAL
    5. IKIWISI::=I'll know it when I see it.
    6. p99: "requirements tend to emerge with continued use".
    7. COTS, p99: "capailities determine the requirements".
    8. WWW change "an impossible to win game of catch-up".
    9. p100: "avoid one-size-fits-all approaches to requirements".
    10. new kindsof requirements: value-driven, sared-vision, change-driven, and risk driven.
    11. benefits vs schedule, business consequences and assumptions, require some room for likely changes like addin low priority needs, in orout? -- minimize the risk.

    Boehm00a

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Project Termination doesn't Equal Project Failure
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n9(Sep 2000)pp94-96
    4. =ESSAY SURVEY PROCESS RISK
    5. Competitive edge means risk. "You shouldn't expect all your risky projects to succed."
    6. manage your products.
    7. manage risk with incremental commitment.
    8. use architecture reviews, feasibillty rationales.
    9. monitor assumptions.
    10. Standish Group reported in 1995 [ chaos.htm ] that 31.1% of projects get cancelled before completion .
    11. Hayes97, computerworld nov 3 1997, managing user expectations.

    Boehm00b

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Safe and Simple software cost analysis
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V17n5(Sep/Oct 2000)pp14-17
    4. =ADVERT COCOMO II ESTIMATING COST
    5. tables diagrams and examples. Pointers to tools.

    Boehm02

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V35n1(Jan 2002)pp64-69
    4. =IDEA XP AGILE adaptive risk-driven plandriven CMM
    5. Presents a spectrum of processes from Hacking to Inch-pebble ironbound contract. XP is the limit of th CMM range.
    6. Agile processes must have involved clientele. Plan-driven must have stable requirements.
    7. There exist requirements that break architectures.
    8. Shows graphs of risk exposure vs amount of planning for different losses that have to be traded-off at a sweet spot.
    9. For L:loss, risk_exposure(l)::=P[L] * size(L).

    Boehm08

    1. Barry Boehm
    2. Making a Difference in the Software Century
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V41n3(Mar 2008)pp32-38
    4. =ESSAY IDEAS ACRONYMIC CATCHPHRASES ONESIZE OSUFA BITAR IKIWISI DAVAS SISOS TANIA
    5. Rapid change vs
    6. THWADI::="Thats How We've Always Done It".
    7. Uncertainty and Emergence. Cone of Uncertainty. [Armour08]
    8. BITAR::="Buy Information To Avoid Risk", Do extra things to reduce uncertainty. Tackle risks early.
    9. IKIWISI::="I'll know it when I see it". So Iterate.
    10. Dependability
    11. DAVAS::="Dependability As Value Assured to Stakeholders". Example of conflicting values in a well known failed project.
    12. Diversity.
    13. OSUFA::="One Size Fits All". Culture makes a difference in the adoption of process standards.
    14. SISOS::="Software Intensive Systems of Systems". OSUFA leads to failure
    15. Interdependence.
    16. TANIA::="There Are No Islands Anymore". No part of a system or of a process is isolated.
    17. Figure 5, p36: Activities >< Phases >-> Level_of_activity, CF RUP.
    18. SISOS need more time for Architecture and Risks.

    BoehmBasili00

    1. Barry Boehm & Victor R Basili
    2. Gaining intellectual control of Software Development
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n5(May 2000)pp27-33
    4. =ESSAY RESEARCH PLANNING PITAC NSF AESOP COTS PEOPLE SCIENCE ENGINEERING
    5. President's information technology advisory committee
    6. Report on two workshops.
    7. great software depends on more than good engineering or just good technology.
    8. need to study rea,l projects and compare successes and failures.
    9. confusing table mapping dependencies of key challenges on software eng technologies and these technologies on underlying science.
    10. need for domain science!

    BoehmBhuta08

    1. Barry Boehm & Jesal Bhuta
    2. Balancing Opportunities and Risks in Component-based software development
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V25n6(Nov/Dec 2008)pp56-63
    4. =IDEA =EXAMPLE JPL PROCESS INCREMENTAL COMMITMENT ITERATION RISKs STAKEHOLDERS
    5. ICM::acronym="Incremental Commitment Model",
    6. ICM::lifecycle=exploration; valuation; foundations; develeopment & foundations; do(Operations & Development & Foundations ).
    7. Mentions example of an architectural mismatch leading to a 4 times over-run, taking 5 person-years rather than 1.

    Boehmetal97

    1. Barry Boehm & Alex Egyed & Julie Kwan & Ray Madachy
    2. Developing Multimedia Applications with the WinWin Spiral Model

      [JazayeriSchauer97] pp20-39

    3. =DEMO PROCESS TOOLs
    4. students develop multimedia systems for USC library in 11 weeks
    5. key milestones=life_cycle_objectives life_cycle_architecture initial_operational_capability.

    BoehmHuang03

    1. Barry Boehm & Li Guo Huang
    2. Value-Based Software Engineering: A case Study
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V36n3(Mar 2003)pp33-41
    4. =CASESTUDY ECONOMIC REQUIREMENTS PROCESS ESTIMATING AGILE FEEDBACK
    5. Software can/does fail because of business non-technical value errors. See [ http://www.standishgroup.com ] CHAOS report.
    6. Need to track the business value of all tasks performed and needed and use this to adjust plans.
    7. initiative #(->cause_effect) ->assumptions
    8. EDSER::="Economics-Driven Software Engineering Research", [ http://www.edser.org ]

    BoehmHuangJainMadachy04

    1. Barry Boehm & LiGuo Huang & Apurva Jain & Ray Madachy
    2. The ROI of Software Dependability: The iDAVE Model
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V21n3(May/Jun 2004)pp54-61
    4. =CASESTUDY COCMO RELIABILITY ECONOMICS COQUALMO MTBF NASA OrderProcessing
    5. iDAVE::="information Dependability Attribute Value Estimation".
    6. Estimates the rate of introduction and removal of defects and the effect on the MTBF.
    7. MTBF::="Meantime before Failure",
    8. MTTR::="Meantime to Repair".
    9. MTBF and MTTR leads to Availability.
    10. Availability changes Benefit.
    11. Hence ROI.
    12. Does not quantify risks such as loss of life and reputation.

    BoehmIn96

    1. Barry Boehm & Hoh In(USC)
    2. Identifying Quality-Requirement Conflicts
    3. IEEE Software magazine V13n3(Mar 1996)pp25-35
    4. =ADVERT TOOL QUALITY conflicts
    5. QARCC Knowledge-based groupware tool WinWin Stakeholders--<quality attributes<>-<>Techniques

    BoehmPapaccio88

    1. Barry W Boehm & Philip N Papaccio
    2. Understanding and Controlling Software Costs
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng VSE-14n10(Oct 1988)pp1462-1477
    4. =IDEA spiral model+value chain+oportunity tree COST

    5. Conclude: important & contolling cost means controlling quality & less new code by best people with little rework and integrated support environment

    BoehmPortAl-Said00

    1. Barry Boehm & Dan Port & Mohammed Al-Said
    2. Avoiding the Software Model-Clash Spider-web
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n11(Nov 2000)pp120-122
    4. =IDEA SUCCESS MODELS PQRST Mbase stake holders Master Net
    5. Stakeholder := user | acquirer | developer | maintainer | ... | public.
    6. Each stake holder has a different model of what is needed.
    7. Each model is a set of assumptions.
    8. Classified as process, product, property, and success.
    9. Could use purpose, qualities, techniques, team, etc .
    10. Clashes can occur between and within different stakeholder models.
    11. Has been used two diagnose problems quickly in large and small projects.
    12. interesting spider-web diagram on p121.
    13. Mbase::= See http://sunset.usc.edu/research/MBASE.

    BoehmTurner03a

    1. Barry Boehm & Richard Turner
    2. Using Risk to Balance Agile and Plan-Driven Methods
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V36n6(Jun 2003)pp57-66
    4. =ADVERT one-size situation risk process agile vs planned anchor mbase rup xp spiral modules
    5. Based on book by same authors... [BoehmTurner03b].
    6. Sidebar pp58-59: defines home grounds for agile and plan-based processes plus five critical factors: size, criticality, dynamism, personnel, and culture. Kiviat style polar chart.
    7. sidebar p60:misquotes Cockburn03. 3 levels of skill.
    8. figure 1 p60. idea: if situation does not fit either agile or planned then architect the project into agile and planned parts.
    9. p63: can focus testing on the high-risk parts.
    10. fig 4 p65: 3 kinds of risk: environmental, agile, plan-driven. ranges: minimal..showstopper.

    BoehmTurner03

    1. Barry Boehm & Richard Turner
    2. Balancing agility and Discipline: A guide for the perplexed
    3. Addison-Wesley Longman Boston MA 2003 ISBN 0321186125
    4. =UNREAD =SYNTHESIS AGILE ONESIZE CR 0410-1130
    5. Avertized in [BoehmTurner03a].

    BoehmTurner05

    1. Barry Boehm & Richard Turner
    2. Management Challenges to Implementing Agile Processes in Traditional Development Organizations
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V22n5(Sep/Oct 2005)pp30-39 =REPORT WORKSHOP Management Agile vs Traditional People Organizations Culture
    4. p34. Sidebar lists 8 nonproblems + 10problems due to size/scope + 18 significant issues.
    5. Authors make suggestions.

    Bogart91

    1. Kenneth P Bogart
    2. An Obvious Proof of Burnside's Lemma
    3. American Math Monthly V98n12(Dec 1991)pp927-928
    4. "a function f from set S to a set T defines a multiset of size |S| chosen from T in which the multiplicity of t ∈ T is the number of s ∈ S with f(s)=t" =map[t:T]|/f(t)| = /f; Card= Card o /f. +(Card o /f)=Card o dom(f).

    Bohlen02

    1. Boris Bohlen & Dirk Jager & Ansgar schleicher
    2. UPGRADE: building interactive tools for visual languages

      [SCI2002] V1(Jul 2002)

    3. =EXPERIENCE VISUAL GRAPHIC TOOLS

    BohmJacopini66

    1. Corrado Bohm & Giuseppe Jacopini
    2. Flow Diagrams, Turing Machines, and Languages with only Two Formation Rules
    3. Commun ACM V9n5(May 1966)pp366-71 [ 355592.365646 ]
    4. =THEORY Structured programming technical sequential proof
    5. The key paper that allowed structured programming to take off.
    6. (BohmJacopini)|-All programs can be reprogrammed using sequence, selection, and iteration and no other structures.

    BojicEtal04

    1. Dragan Bojic & Thomas Eisenbarth & Rainer Koschke & Daniel Simon & Dusan Velasevic
    2. Addendum to "Locating Features in Source Code"
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V30n2(Feb 2004)p140
    4. =SURVEY CONCEPT ANALYSIS
    5. Ball: tests vs parts of programs to help testing.
    6. BojicVelaseic: usecase vs parts of programs refactoring in UML.
    7. EisenbarthKosckeSimon: scenarios vs functional blocks to aid traceability

    BojicVelasevic00

    1. Dragan Bojic & Dusan Velasevic
    2. Reverse Engineering of Use Case Realizations in U ML
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering notes V25n4(Jul 2000)pp56-61
    4. =IDEA VisualC++ TEST profiling LOGIC DA-C
    5. use concept analysis to convert profiles of test executions into lattices of use-cases

    Bokowski99

    1. Boris Bokowski
    2. CoffeeStrainer: Statically-checked Constraints on the Definition and use of Types in Java
    3. ESEC/FSE'99 SIGFOFT SE Notes V24n6(Nov 1999)pp355-374
    4. =TOOL JAVA V&V CORRECTNESS TYPES CONSTRAINTS

    BollellaGosling00

    1. Greg Bollella & James Gosling
    2. The Real-time specfication for java
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V33n6(Jun 2000)pp47-54
    4. =HISTORY OBJECT-ORIENTED NET PERFORMANCE RTSJ RTJEG NIST STANDARD

    Bollinger95

    1. Terry Bolinger(DSC Communications)
    2. What can Happen when Metrics Make a Call
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V12n1(Jan 1995)pp15
    4. Distinguish feature metrics from derived metrics. derivation: equation supposed to show progress towards goal
    5. Dangers of Bogus metrics (eg lines of code). pressures practitioners into doing bad things almost inevitable
    6. need to listen to developers very carefully: can give a good metrics program & get some serious buy-in as well

    Bollinger00

    1. Terry Bollinger
    2. Visual Basic: Taming the woolly mamoth
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V17n3(May/Jun 2000)pp16-17
    4. =ESSAY COBOL BASIC THEORY vs PRACTICE
    5. why two very popular languages have so few papers written about them?

    BollingerBeckman99

    1. Terry Bollinger & Peter Beckman
    2. Linux on the Move
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V16n1(Jan/Feb 1999)pp30-35
    4. =HISTORY open-source development TECHNICAL
    5. only use honest unmanaged of code peer review

    Bolloju04

    1. Narasimha Bolloju
    2. Improving the quality of business object models using Collaboration patterns
    3. Commun ACM V47n7(Jul 2004)pp81-86
    4. =EXPERIMENT MODEL REALITIES PATTERN UML COMPOSITION
    5. Based on Coad and Fowler lists 12 simple patters that helped students improve their conceptual models in 13 different business application domains: spotting classes and connections, plus correcting errors.
    6. Collaboration_patterns::#Pattern=following,
      • E1: Role (1)-(0..*) Transaction
      • E6: Transaction (1)-(0..*) FollowupTransaction E5: Specification (1)-(0..*) Transaction
      • E3: CompositeTransaction (1)<*>-(0..*) LineItem
      • E2: Place (1)-(0..*) Transaction
      • R: Actor (1)-(0..*) Role
      • T1: Item (1)-(0..*) SpecificItem
      • T4: Group (1)<>-(0..*) Member
      • E4: SpecificItem (1)-(0..*) Transaction
      • T2: Assembly(1)<*>-(0..*) Part
      • P: OuterPlace (1)-(0..*) Place
      • T3: Container (1)<*>-(0..*) Content
    7. Next [BollojuLeung06]

    Bolloju09

    1. Narasimha Bolloju
    2. Conceptual Modeling of Systems Integration Requirements
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V25n6(Sep/Oct 2000)pp66-74
    4. =EXPERIMENT METHOD NOTATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS SERVICES
    5. Graph: Nodes represent subsystems and transformations. Arcs labelled with conditions and messages.
    6. Transformations: BATCH and SPLIT, AGGREGATE and DISTRIBUTE, X(translation).
    7. Uses <....> to indicate refined subsystem.
    8. Tested an 78 graduate students who found it usable.

    BollojuLeung06

    1. Narasimha Bolloju & Felix S K Leung
    2. Assisting Novice Analysts in Developing Quality Conceptual models with UML
    3. Commun ACM V49n6(Jun 2006)pp108-112
    4. =EMPIRICAL 15 PROJECTS UML UseCase Domain ERD sequence diagram model V&V SQA REQUIREMENTS CSCI372 CSCI375
    5. Table 3 lists the commonest errors by artifact
      Table
      ArtifactSyntaxSemanticsPragmatics
      Use Case Diagrambad notationbad extendscases too small?
      Use Case Descriptionmismatch name with diagram MIssing and ambiguous steps, invalid extension steps too small and implementation dependent
      Class Diagrams not listing operations in sequence diagram or listing implicit operations wrong multiplicity, mislocated attributes and operations, unrealizable operation Subclasses not distinguished, showing inherited attributes
      Sequence Diagram missing "found" signal, return to wrong object, class not on class diagram missing parameters, parameters used before set, missing classes Responsibility misallocated to wrong object [Larman05]

      (Close Table)
    6. Ref to [LindlandSundreSolvberg94] for qualities of conceptual models.
    7. Also see [Bolloju04]

    Bolognesi00

    1. Tommaso Bolognesi
    2. Toward Constraint-Object-Oriented Development
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V26n7(Jul 2000)pp594-616
    4. =EXAMPLE OBJECT-ORIENTED SPECIFICATION DESIGN STYLE COO LOTOS CO-NOTATION Z GRAPHIC

    BolognesiBrinkma95

    1. T. Bolognesi & Ed Brinksma
    2. Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS
    3. Comput Network and ISDN Syst V14n1(1987)pp25-29

    Bolognesietal95

    1. T. Bolognesi & Jeroen van de Lagemaat (mailto:lagemaat@cs.utwente.nl) & C.A. Vissers (ed)
    2. LOTOSphere: Software Development using LOTOS
    3. Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995 ISBN 0-7923-9529-8
    4. =ADVERT LOTOS TOOLS

    Bolt84

    1. ?? BOLT
    2. Human interfaces for managers
    3. Computer World v16 (July 1984) pp In Depth/1..18
    4. =ARTICLE USER

    BoltaciJones95

    1. L. Boltaci & J.Jones
    2. Formal specification using Z: A modeling approach
    3. International Thomson Publishing London 1995.
    4. =DEMO MODEL Z SPECIFICATION FORMAL

    Bond95

    1. David Bond
    2. Project-Level Archetypes
    3. Software Development Magazine(Jul 1995)pp39-44+letter (Oct 1995)p11
    4. =IDEA DOMAINs ECONOMICS one-size does not fit all
    5. Suggests that different industries/situations have different "best practices". four models:
      1. constrained
      2. internal client
      3. vertical market
      4. mass market.

    6. cf [Constantine95b]
    7. Letter points out the additional complexity of producing software is the need to integrate the new into existing systems.

    BondAnderson01

    1. Mike Bond & Ross Anderson
    2. API-Level Attacks on Embedded Systems
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V34n10(Oct 2001)pp67-75
    4. =HISTORY DESIGN SECURE INTERFACE CRYPTOGRAPHY ATMS COMMERCIAL IBM Visa VSM
    5. Using formal methods to calculate new attacks on ATMs!
    6. How to split a key so that it can be transmitted to a device securely in shares and combined internally so that the right key is installed and nobody knows what it is -- even if < n people collude, even if shareholders lie about their shares to the device!

    BondG05

    1. Gregory W Bond
    2. Software as Art
    3. Commun ACM V48n8(Aug 2005)pp118-124
    4. =ESSAY ART
    5. Knuth

    BonifattiEtal01

    1. Angela Bonifatti & Fabiano Cattaneo & stafano Ceri & Alfonso Fuggetta & Stefano Paraboschi
    2. Designing Data Marts for Data Warehouses
    3. ACM TOSEM Trans Software Engineering & Methodology V10n4(Oct 2001)pp452-483
    4. =CASESTUDY DATA OLAP REQUIREMENTS GQM Star ERD C-Graph snowFlake

    BontempsHeymansSchobbens05

    1. Yves Bontemps & Patrick Heymans & Pierre-Yves Schobbens
    2. From Live Sequence Charts to State Machines and Back: A Guided Tour
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V31n12(Dec 2005)pp999-1014
    4. =THEORY REQUIREMENTS SCENARIOS SSDs MSC Message Sequence diagrams LSC Live sequence charts FSM/STD STATE CHARTS
    5. Proves that most problems linking message sequence charts to state based models are intractable -- efficient automation may be impossible. [Harel01]

    Booch83

    1. G Booch
    2. Software Engineering with Ada
    3. Benjamin Cummings 1983
    4. =HOWTO object-oriented graphic text Reality Technical

    Booch86

    1. Grady Booch
    2. Object Oriented Development
    3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng vSE-12n2(Feb 1986)pp211-221 (in BerglandZave86)
    4. =HOWTO Ada graphic Reality object

    Booch91

    1. Grady Booch
    2. Object Oriented Design with applications
    3. Benjamin Cummins Redwood City CA 1991 ISBN 0-8053-0091-0 CR9105-0322 & CR 9209-0690 & CR9404-0198
    4. =HOWTO [Booch94a instead]

    Booch94a

    1. Grady Booch(Rational)
    2. Object Oriented Analysis and Design with applications(2nd Edn)
    3. Benjamin Cummins Redwood City CA 1994
    4. ISBN 0-8053-5340-2 CR9502-0135"Marked improvement over the first edition while retaining the outstanding features of the original"(T H Tse)

    Booch94b

    1. Grady Booch
    2. Coming of Age in an Object-Oriented World
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V11n6(Nov 1994)pp33-41
        p35: distinguishes "off the shelf" from "custom"
      1. off the shelf
      2. Codifies a specific and well understood horizontal domain
      3. large market
      4. driven to higher technical sophistication by the market
      5. beomes a commodity item
      6. Custom
      7. Vertical business line
      8. includes off the shelf components
      9. must be as complex as the domain
      10. domain is not well understood and is complex.

      11. OO::=Net{Abstraction, Encapsulation, Inheritance, Polymorphism}.

        OO{programming, methods, infrastructure}

        Increasing focus on architectures rather than just classes

        Includes RDBMSs as OO.


    Booch99

    1. Grady Booch(guest editor)
    2. UML in action
    3. Commun ACM V42n10(Oct 1999)pp26-70
    4. See [Kobryn99] [Larsen99] [Selic99] [BellSchmidt99] [Conallen99]

    Booch01

    1. Grady Booch
    2. The Illusion of Simplicity
    3. Software Development Magazine V9n1(Jan 2001)pp57-59
    4. =ARTICLE PQRST MODEL MODULE
    5. Forces on software development: cost/schedule, functionality, compatibility, reliability/availability, security, failsafe/fault-tolerance, Resilience, technology churn, scalability, capacity, Performance
    6. help: abstractions: Object-Oriented , patterns, modeling
    7. balance and mitigating conflicting forces.

    Booch01b

    1. Grady Booch
    2. Developing the Future
    3. Commun ACM V44n3(Mar 2001)pp119-121
    4. =POLL OPINION PEOPLE SWEBOK XP Opensource
    5. Future: split betwen high and low ceremony processes leading to some reconciliation.
    6. More user-programmers vs a more mature profession.

    Booch06

    1. Grady Booch
    2. The Accidental Architecture
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V23n3(May/Jun 2006)pp9-11
    4. =ESSAY ARCHITECTURE =HISTORY WWW/NET PATTERNS
    5. Notes that we don't have a comprehensive list of architectures for software.
    6. ... unlike buildings: Babylonian, Greek, ...
    7. Refers to Henry Petroski.
    8. Describes a history of the WWW architectural styles: Plain HTML, Eye-Candy, simple scripting, middleware, simple frameworks, rich-client | service-oriented architecture.
    9. Argues that architectural patterns emerge from a experience.

    Booch06a

    1. Grady Booch
    2. Goodness of fit
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n10(Oct 2006)pp14-15
    4. =ESSAY ARCHITECTURE STYLE PATTERNS FORTRAN COMPILER
    5. Bachus's original pipe-and-filter architecture for FORTRAN compilation remains good for recent languages....with some small tweaks.
    6. Does not mention [Jackson75]'s use of pipe+filter to Data Processing and McIlory's pipes in UNIX.
    7. For a given set of forces there is a better architecture. The forces in a given domain are pretty constant.

    Booch07

    1. Grady Booch
    2. Object-oriented analysis and Design with Applications
    3. Addisson Wesley Longman Redwood City CA 2007 ISBN 020189551X CR 0808-0732
    4. =UNREAD =HOWTO ANALYSIS DESIGN OBJECTS
    5. Notes [click here [socket symbol] if you can fill this hole]

    Boogie09

    1. Microsoft Research
    2. Boogie -- The World's Best Program Verification System
    3. Web site Aug 27th 2009 [ http://boogie.codeplex.com/ ]
    4. =ADVERT OPEN SOURCE VERIFIER SQA PROOF NONSEQUENTIAL TOOL #
    5. "Boogie is a program verification system that produces verification conditions for programs written in an intermediate languagec (also named Boogie). The intermediate language is easy to target from source languages such as Spec#, C#, or even C."

    BoralvStalmarck99

    1. Arne Boralv & Gunnar Stalmarck
    2. Formal Verification in Railways
    3. In [HincheyBowen99] pp329-350
    4. =EXPERIENCE RISKS SPECIFICATION STD/FSM LOGIC TPA vs DESIGN V&V TOOL Prover Delphi for ADtranz CVT Swedish Sternol
    5. Prover is a Company specializing in the industrialization of formal methods. Stalmarck has patented the proof algorithm!
    6. Can we make a formal tool that is as transparent to use as a word processor? Some parts need a formal methods expert, but some parts can be made more useful to railway interlocking engineers.
    7. Need to trade-off expressive power of logic with the performance of the tool.
    8. Claims that ONLY domain/application knowledge is needed to use the tools.

    Borger88

    1. Egon Bo"rger(Ed)
    2. Trends in Theoretical Computer Science
    3. Computer Science Press Rockville Maryland 1988
    4. =Series: Principles of Computer science series

      [Gurevich88]

    BorgerSchulte00

    1. Egon Bo"rger & Wolfram Schulte
    2. A Practical Method for Specification and Analysis of Exception Handling -- A Java/JVM Case Study
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V26n9(Sep 2000)pp872-887
    4. =CASESTUDY LOGIC SPECIFICATION SEMANTICS JAVA COMPILER JVM PROOF

    Borgida85

    1. Alexander Borgida
    2. Features of Languages for the Development of Information Systems at the Conceptual Level
    3. IEEE Software V2n1(Jan 1985)pp63-72
    4. =SURVEY data concepual modeling

    Borgidaetal95

    1. Alex Borgida & John Mylopoulos & Raymond Reiter
    2. The frame problem in procedure specifications
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-SE-21n10(Oct 1995)pp785-798
    4. =CRITIQUE LOGIC Set Theory SPECIFICATION METHODS circumscription [BorgidaMylopoulosReiter93] JacksonD9 [McCarthy87] [Delgrande98]

    BorgidaGreenspanMylopoulos85

    1. Alexander Borgida & Sol Greenspan & John Mylopoulos
    2. Knowledge Representation as the Basis for Requirements Specifications
    3. IEEE Computer MAgazine V18N4(Apr 1985)pp82-91 [ MC.1985.1662870 ]
    4. =ESSAY MODEL REALITY PURPOSE Object-Oriented AI ONTOLOGY parts IS-A TIMES RML
    5. Also see what happened [BorgidaGreenspanMylopoulos94]

    BorgidaGreenspanMylopoulos94

    1. Alexander Borgida & Sol Greenspan & John Mylopoulos
    2. On formal requirements modeling languages: RML revisited
    3. SIGSOFT Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Software engineering pp135-147 .See
    4. =HISTORY RML MODEL REALITY PURPOSE Object-Oriented ONTOLOGY GIST KAOS
    5. Also see [BorgidaGreenspanMylopoulos85]
    6. Need QUALITIES -- non-functional requirements NFRs.

    BorgidaJarke92

    1. Alex Borgida & Mathias Jarke
    2. Knowledge and Representation in Software Engineering(Editorial on special issue)
    3. IEEE Trans SE-18n6(Jun 1992)pp449-450 CR9307-0467
    4. domain logic ... relation to formal methods ... power vs performance ... empirical results

    BorgidaMylopoulosReiter93

    1. A Borgida & J Mylopoulos & R Reiter
    2. "And Nothing Else Changes":The frame problem in procedure specifications
    3. In Proc of the 15th Int Conf on Software Engineering
    4. IEEE Computer Society(May 1993)pp303-314
    5. Ref from ZaveJackson93 [Borgidaetal95] [BicarreguiRitchie95]

    BorsoiBecerra08

    1. Beatriz Terezinha Borsoi & Jorge Luis Risco Becerra
    2. Definition and modeling of process using object orientation
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes archive V33n3 (May 2008) Article No. 2
    4. =IDEA PROCESS MODEL OBJECT-ORIENTED
    5. Compare to earlier proposal [JaccheriPiccoLago99] E^3 OO process language.
      But
        Why not just use the OMG_SPEM?
      1. OMG_SPEM::="Software Process Engineering MetaModel", [ modeling_spec_catalog.htm ]

      (Close But )

    Bosak98

    1. Jon Bosak(Sun)
    2. Mediaindependent Publishing: Four Myths about XML
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V31n10(Oct 1998)pp120-122
    4. =ADVERT XML
      1. XML is a not MS conspiracy -- many others are involved.
      2. XML is not an extension of HTML -- both come from SGML.
      3. XML can not drive a web browser without style rules: DSSL and XSL [ WD-xsl ]
      4. XML is not just for data -- it can convey any kind of structured data but it can also make any kind of information independent of pratform/vendor/media/nationallity

    BossomaierGreen01

    1. Terry R J Bossomaier & David G Green (Editors)
    2. Complex Systems
    3. Cambridge University Press 2000 ISBN 0-521-46245-2 Q172.5.C45C64
    4. =SURVEY MATHEMATICS Alife GRAPH Theory Criticality fractals theory nets chaos

    Boswell95

    1. Anthony Boswell
    2. Specification and Validation of a Security Policy Model
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-21n2(Feb 1995)pp63-68
    4. =ADVERT TOOL FORMALIZER and Z
        typical Z schemas are 6..10 lines long, 65 schemas in total some here where 11..20 or more giant schemas: many definitions, state transitions, state includes state of many tables.

        systematic documentation of results and structure of arguments

        The usefulness of diagrams...systematic diagrams.


    Botting75

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Letter on Comments and Methods
    3. Computing Europe, Oct 30th, p8.
    4. =LETTER ASSERTIONS CODE TECHNICAL
    5. Don't want comments that tell you that i++ adds one to i.
    6. You want comments that state what is necessarily true at that point in the program.

    Botting77

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Efficient Storage for Amorphous Data
    3. Software -Practice and Experience V7pp201-203
    4. =DEMO Technical data structure

    Botting78a

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Loglan -- a more flexible language
    3. =ADVERT Loglan Mathematics Logic ITL UNIVERSAL LANGUAGES
    4. Computer Weekly (UK) n598 (Feb 16 1978)letters
    5. Response to [Kelly78]
    6. Argues that Loglan fits Kelly's criteria better.

    Botting78b

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Languages at the Crossroads
    3. =ADVERT Loglan Mathematics Esperanto ITL UNIVERSAL LANGUAGES
    4. Computer Weekly (UK) n598 (April 27 1978)p4
    5. Response to [Love78]
    6. Calls for "an Intermediate Text Language that benefits language translation and not use computers to help Esperanto"
    7. Need to examine many alternative solutions to a problem.

    Botting84a

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Fred - a Friendly Editor
    3. Proc Western Educational Computing Conference Nov 1984 Western Periodicals Co N Hollywood CA.
    4. =DEMO USER DAD System Technical [ papers/rjb84a.FRED.html ]
    5. DAD::="Dynamic Analysis and Design", uses BNF style descriptions of entity life histories to determine the code of the software that keeps track of them.
    6. Evolution of FRED is further tracked in [Botting84b]

    Botting84b

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Generalization - An Alternative to Error Messages
    3. Proc Western Educational Computing Conference Nov 1984( pp98-99) Western Periodicals Co N Hollywood CA. [ papers/rjb84b.Generalization.html ]
    4. =DEMO USER non-sequential System PROTOTYPING EVOLUTIONARY AGILE
    5. History of a simple technology strapped but successful piece of software.
    6. Error messages show the lack of imagination of programmers.
    7. Software can be evolved.

    Botting85a

    1. RJ Botting
    2. On Prototypes vs Mockups vs Breadboards (letter)
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes v10n1(Jan 1985)p18
    4. =LETTER WORDS PROTOTYPING

    Botting85b

    1. RJ Botting
    2. An Eclectic Approach to Software Engineering
    3. pp25-29 Proc Third Int'l Workshop on Software Specification & Design(IWSSD3) Aug 1985
    4. =survey PQRST PURPOSES QUALITIES REALITIES SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES DFD PROTOTYPES NOTATIONS
    5. Names 28 processes available to a software developer and describes how they are connected. The processes are found in 31 different references.

    Botting85c

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Evolution of Software for a Faculty Workstation
    3. pp120-124 Western Educational Computing Conference1985
    4. =demo evolution prototypes tools System AGILE
    5. You can not reduce paperwork in an office by using a document driven software process in that office.
    6. Abstract
        The author describes the software for a small portable microcomputer workstation. The development of this software did not follow conventional methods, but used prototyping. He argues that useful programs tend to survive, whereas the less successful are either modified or thrown away. The set of successful programs, when compared with the set of unsuccessful programs, suggests some requirements for a faculty workstation. A second conclusion is the need for a new programming system which allows breadboard systems. He gives a preliminary specification for a software breadboarding system.

    Botting85d

    1. RJ Botting
    2. IO Statements in Higher Programming Languages(letter)
    3. IEEE Computer v18n8(Aug 1985)p95
    4. =harmful Technical

    Botting86a

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Into the Fourth Dimension: An Introduction to Dynamic Analysis & Design
    3. SE Notes v11 n2 pp36-48 Apr 1986 ACM SIG Software Engineering
    4. =THEORY DAD graphic logic Reality

    Botting86b

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Novel Security Techniques for Online Systems
    3. (Pracnique) Commun ACM Vol 29 No 5 (May 1986)
    4. =DEMO DAD SECURITY HCI

    Botting87a

    1. RJ Botting
    2. A Critique of Pure Functionalism
    3. pp148-153 Proc. Fourth Int'l Workshop on Software Specification & Design(IWSSD4) April 1987 IEEE Catalog No. TH0181-8 LA CA
    4. =DEMO formal DAD DFD ERD DDD data lift

    Botting87b

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Regular Expressions Relations & Software: Part I - Practice & Part II - Theory
    3. Western Educational Computing Conference Nov 1987 Western Periodicals Co. N Hollywood CA.
    4. =THEORY DDD JSP theory languages logic formal

    Botting88

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Data Structures Classes Can Mislead
    3. Western Educational Computing Conference Nov 1988 Western Periodicals Co N Hollywood CA.
    4. =THEORY DISK DATA OPTIMIZATION PERFORMANCE QUALITIES
    5. Assumes [PechuraShoefler83] 's formula for disk access: time delay is linearly dependent on distance between data.
    6. Proves that for large data structures common O(...) formulas are wrong.
    7. Example: a binary search of n items in a large disk file takes O(n) not O(log(n)).

    Botting89a

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Comments on Tripp's Graphical Notations
    3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V14n1 (Jan 1989)p83
    4. =LETTER Dimensional charts graphic

    Botting89b

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Abstract of Research
    3. Proc ACM CSC Conf 1989
    4. =survey PQRST

    Botting93

    1. RJ Botting
    2. Would you like your program in a glass?
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V26n10(Oct 1993)p104
    4. =JOKE PROCESS
    5. vaporware, liquidware, software, soggyware, firmware, hardware

    Botting94

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. When More is Expected of Programmers(Letter)
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V11n5(Sep 1994)p9
    4. =LETTER PEOPLE

    Botting95a

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. On the Relational Semantics of Programming Languages
    3. Faculty seminar CSci CSUSB Spring 1995 [ rjb95a.Relations.vs.Programs.html ]
    4. =THEORY SEMANTICS RELATIONS

    Botting95b

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Can One Size Fit All?
    3. Faculty seminar CSci CSUSB Fall 1995 [ rjb95b.one.size.html ] [Botting97a]
    4. =IDEA ECONOMICS CULTURE ONE-SIZE

    Botting97a

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. On the Economics of Mass-Marketed Software
    3. pages 465-470 of Proceedings of [ICSE'97]
    4. =IDEA ECONOMICS SUNK externallities CULTURE ONE-SIZE
    5. why one product becomes dominant and then is eclipsed by a later one. network effects. Sunk Costs. cultural assumptions [Botting95b] [CusumanoYoffie98]

    Botting99

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. On the application of a popular notation to semantics
    3. ACM SIGPLAN Notices V34n6(Jun 1999)pp82-83
    4. =IDEA Why not use the UML and OCL to express Programming LANGUAGE SEMANTICS OBECT-ORIENTED
    5. Uses TABULAR presentation of polymorphic functions.
    6. Proposes a fixed point operator for the OCL

    Botting99a

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. The MATHS Manifesto
    3. URL [ 10_manifesto.html ]
    4. =ADVERT DEFINES MATHS
    5. MATHS::="Multi-purpose Abstractions, Terminology, Heuristics and Symbols".

    Botting00a

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Designing the Real World
    3. IEEE Software Magazine (Letters) V17n2(Mar/Apr 2000)pp8-9
    4. =ESSAY REALITY OOA/D NONSEQUENTIAL
    5. See [Kaindl99]

    BottingJuristo00

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Natural Language dispute (Letter)
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V17n5(Sep/Oct 2000)p11
    4. =DISCUSSION POLYMORPHISM MODEL ANALYSIS vs DESIGN OBJECT-ORIENTED GRASP
    5. Discussion of [JuristoMorenoLopez00]

    Botting02

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Some Stochastic Models of Software Evolution

      [SCI2002] V1(Jul 2002)pp23-27

    3. =THEORY DEBUGGING EVOLUTION SOFTWARE
    4. One size does not fit all
    5. Keep your n small and your α high!
    6. A million monkeys will beat a single blind watch maker.

    Botting05

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Teaching and Learning Ethics in Computer Science: Walking the Walk
    3. ACM SIGCSE Tech Symp Proc (Feb 2005)pp342-346, SIGCSE Bulletin "Inroads" V37n1 (Mar 2005) pp342-346.
    4. =ANECDOTE EDUCATION ETHICS SECURITY Identity Theft

    Botting05a

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. On the co-evolution of SSADM and the UML
    3. Chapter V in [Yang05] pp134-151
    4. =IDEA UML2.0 SSADM

    Botting05b

    1. Richard Botting
    2. Small Errors in "Toward formalizing domain modeling semantics in language syntax"
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V31n10(Oct 2005)pp911
    4. =Correction Statecharts fork vs decision

    Botting06

    1. Richard J Botting
    2. Use Case Diagrams
    3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n8(Sep 2006)pp5 [ MC.2006.317 ]
    4. =LETTER DFD USE CASES UML2.0 information flows
    5. See [DedekeLieberman06] for an non-standard way to document use case data flows.
    6. Refers to [Botting05b] and [ http://cse.csusb.edu/dick/papers/rjb04bDFDs/ ]

    BottingRoss

    1. R J Botting & Paul Ross
    2. Software Engineering for Computer Scientists
    3. Unpublished Manuscript for a text book used in early 1980s.
    4. =text formal data DDD method co-routines nonsequential nondeterministic design technical assemblers loaders editors
    5. AKA Engineered Systems Software

    BourdeauCheng95

    1. Robert H Bourdeau & Betty H C Cheng
    2. A Formal Semantics for Object Model Diagrams
    3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-SE-21n10(Oct 1995)pp799-821
    4. OMT in Larch LSL GRAPHIC FORMAL OBJECT-ORIENTED [ serg.html ]
    5. Does not permit OMT subclasses to contain attributes found in superclass (fig 39..41 eqn 24)

    BourqueEtal99

    1. Pierre Bourque & Robert Dupuis & Alain Abran & James W Moore & Leonard Tripp
    2. A Guide to the Software Engineering Body of knowledge
    3. IEEE Software Magazine V16n6(Nov/Dec 1999)pp35-41
    4. =ADVERT SWEBOK PLAN ENGINEERING

    BoussinotSimone96

    1. Frederic Boussinot & Robert de Simone
    2. The SL Synchronous Language
    3. IEEE Trans Softw Eng VSE22n4(Apr 1996)pp256-266
    4. "as soon as signal hypotheses are allowed incorrect programs may be written". Incorrect meaning non-causal and unpredictable: "when S then t1 else t2" suspends if S is not present and then enters t2....

    Boute81

    1. R T Boute
    2. "Towards System Specification Languages"
    3. 4th International conference on Software Engineering for Telecommunications Switching Systems University of Warwick(Conventry UK)
    4. Inst of Electrical and Radio Engineers London UK July 1981 pp31-37
    5. =SURVEY SRS LANGUAGES
      1. Used p397 of DavisA90
      2. Condemns STDs/FSMs
      3. (1) not abstract, (2) not powerful enough (3) not structured Davis: "proposes using non-deterministic multistring dialogue grammars".

    Boute92

    1. Raymond T Boute
    2. The Euclidean definition of the functions div and mod
    3. ACM TOPLAS V14n2(April 1992)pp127-144
    4. CR9211-0871
    5. Semantics mathematics
        CR: "A paper that should have been written decades ago, in which case an existing widespread incompleteness in programming language design could have been prevented"

    Boute00

    1. Raymond T Boute
    2. Supertotal function definition in Mathematics and Software Engineering
    3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V26n7(Jul 2000)pp662-672
    4. =IDEA FORMAL LOGIC FUNCTIONAL MATHEMATICS calculational
    5. Refers to FunMath [PVS]

      [Parnas93]

    6. Compare: [LPT]
    7. Question: How to calculated easily with partial functions?
    8. Idea: Functions defined by a domain and an expression can be treated as total by extension to an arbitrary value in calculating with suitably guarded formulae

    BowdigeGriswold98

    1. Robert W Bowidge & William G Griswold
    2. Supporting the Restructuring of Data Abstractionns through Manipulation of a Program Visulaization
    3. ACM TOSEM V7n2(Apr 1998)pp109-157
    4. =TOOL TECHNICAL GRAPHIC ADT REENGINEER
    Bowen00
  1. Jonathon Bowen
  2. The Ethics of Safety-Critical systems
  3. Commun ACM V43n4 (Apr 2000)91-97
  4. =ESSAY RISKS METHODS Aristotle LOGIC
  5. 7 sins: epideictic, hyperole, pistic, oligarchy, ephemeral, epexegesis , maiandos
  6. principles
  7. modes of thought: scientific, technical, prudence, inntelligence/intuition, wisdom
  8. p93: "most theorems are correct, but most hand proofs are wrong"

Bowen01

  1. Jonathon P Bowen
  2. Experience Teaching Z with TOOL and Web Support
  3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V26n2(Mar 2001)pp69-75
  4. =REPORT UK TEACHING MATHEMATICAL LOGICAL SPECIFICATION REFINEMENT TOOLS ZTC ZANS
  5. Diagnostic quizzes leading to makeup tutorials help handle wide ranges of math skills.

BowenHinchey94

  1. Jonathan P Bowen & Michael G Hinchey
  2. Formal Methods andSafety Critical Standards
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V27n8(Aug 1994)pp68-71
      Quotes IEEE standard definitions Most standards are reccommending formal methods rather than mandating them or using them. Table 1, p70: shows that only 1 out of 5 US standards has FMs, but all 7 non-US standards have FMS

      FMs mentioned in standards: CCS(2), CSP(2), HOL(2), LOTOS(2), OBJ(2), Temporal Logic(2), VDM(3), Z(4)


BowenHinchey95a

  1. Jonathan P Bowen & Michael G Hinchey
  2. Ten Commandments of Formal Methods
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V28 n 4(Apr 1995)pp56-63
      To: formal-methods@cs.uidaho.edu Subject: Re: FM technology transfer Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 20:44:35 +0000 From: Mike Hinchey <Michael.Hinchey@cl.cam.ac.uk>

      "Ten Commandments of Formal Methods" by J.P. Bowen and M.G. Hinchey is scheduled for the April (1995) issue of IEEE Computer. "Ten Commandments of Formal Methods" is available as a University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Technical Report (no. 350). The IEEE Computer version will not differ significantly. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mgh1001/TECHREPORTS/10cs.ps.Z (warning: even compressed it's 230K)

    1. I. Thou shalt Choose an Appropriate Notation
    2. II. Thou shalt Formalize but not Overformalize
    3. III. Thou shalt Estimate Costs
    4. IV. They shalt have a Formal Methods Guru On Call
    5. V. Thou shalt not Abandon Traditional ethods
    6. VI. Thou shalt Document Sufficiently
    7. VII. Thou shalt not Compromise thy QUALITY Standards
    8. VIII. Thou shalt not be Dogmatic
    9. IX Thou shalt Test, Test, and Test again
    10. X. Thou Shalt Reuse


BowenHinchey95b

  1. Jonathan P Bowen & Michael G Hinchey
  2. Seven More Myths of Formal Methods
  3. IEEE Software Magazine V12n4(Jul 1995)pp34-40
      Note Based on industrial experience Ref to [Hall90]
    1. 8. FM delay the development process
    2. 9. FM lack tools
    3. 10. FM replace traditional engineering design methods
    4. 11. FM only apply to software
    5. 12. FM are unnecessary
    6. 13. FM are not supportted
    7. 14. FM people always use FM
    8. p40: "system development should be as formal as necessary, but not more formal."

      Notes problems:

    9. sidebar, p37: defining FM, IEEE glossary has two.
    10. notation

      p38: Notes resources: internet forums for Z, VDM, Larch, OBJ. FTP archives, Periodicals. Courses.

      p40: Quotes BBC Interview: "If you want to build systems with ultra-high reliability whcih provide complaxe functionallity and you want to guarantee that they are going to work with very high reliability...you can't do it"


BowenHinchey96

  1. Jonathan P Bowen & Michael G Hinchey
  2. To Formalize or Not to Formalize
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V29N4(Apr 1996}pp18-19
  4. =EXPERIENCE FORMAL MATHEMATICS
      too many misconceptions

      apply to get increased cofidence, to conuer complexity, to satisfy standards few tools

      not enough education and training(apply math to practical problems)


BowenHinchey99

  1. Jonathan P Bowen & Michael G Hinchey It's Greek to Me: Method in the Madness
  2. In [HincheyBowen99] pp1-4
  3. =ESSAY METHODS PHILOSOPHY ETHICS ARISTOTLE
  4. describes sins that can destroy a project that uses formal methods.
  5. Describes useful frames of mind

BowenHinchey06

  1. Jonathan P Bowen & Michael G Hinchey
  2. Ten Commandments of Formal Methods ... Ten years later
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n1(Jan 2006)pp40-48
  4. =HISTORY FORMAL Z TLA
  5. See also "The Ten Commandments revisited: a ten-year perspective on Industrial application of formal methods" Proc 10th Int'l Workshop on formal methods for industrial Critical Systems, ACM Press 2005 pp8-16
  6. CF [BowenHinchey95a]
    Table
    ThenNow
    I. Thou shalt Choose an Appropriate Notation. More now. Hybrids.
    II. Thou shalt Formalize but not Overformalize. 3 levels: specs, Proofs, machine checked.
    III. Thou shalt Estimate Costs.
    IV. They shalt have a Formal Methods Guru On Call. Plus a domain expert early on.
    V. Thou shalt not Abandon Traditional methods.
    VI. Thou shalt Document Sufficiently. Iterative. Including why & when decided.
    VII. Thou shalt not Compromise thy QUALITY Standards. Notation & method.
    VIII. Thou shalt not be Dogmatic. Gap between analysis & specification.
    IX Thou shalt Test, Test, and Test again.
    X. Thou Shalt Reuse.

    (Close Table)

Bowles90

  1. Adrian J. Bowles
  2. A note on the Yourdon Structured Method(Announcement)
  3. ACM SIGSOFT SEN V15n2(Apr 1990)p27
  4. =HISTORY METHOD YSM evolution
  5. YSM::="Yourdon Method".

Bowles95

  1. Adrian J. Bowles
  2. Object methods Emerging and Converging
  3. Software Magazine (May 1995)pp96

BowmanHoltBrewster99

  1. Ivan T Bowman & Richard C Holt & Neil V Brewster
  2. Linux as a Case Study: Its Extracted Software Architecture
  3. ICSE'99, Proceeedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (May 1999)pp555-563
  4. =EMPIRICAL reverse-engineering extracts dependencies between modules.
  5. More connections than predicted between subsystems.

BoyerYu96

  1. Robert S Boyer & Yuan Yu
  2. Automated Proofs of Object Code for a Widely Used Microprocessor
  3. JACM V43n1(Jan 1996) pp166-192 CR9710-0117
  4. =EXPERIENCE PROOF

BoyleReslerWinter99

  1. James M Boyle & R Daniel Resler & Victor L Winter
  2. Do You Trust Your Compiler?
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V32n5(May 1999)pp65-72 + letters V32n10(Oct 99)pp5-7
  4. =ADVERT TAMPR DDD PROOF sound code transformations
  5. Same ideas as McCarthy in the early 1960's
  6. Letters point out errors in paper and reccommend peer review/inspection

BrachiLockermann78

  1. ?? Brachi & ?? Lockermann
  2. Information systems Methodology
  3. Springer Verlag lecture notes in Comp Sci #65
  4. =survey SAD PQRST

BradacPerryVotta94

  1. Mark G Bradac & Dewayne E Perry & Lawrence G Votta
  2. Prototyping a Process Monitoring Experiment
  3. IEEE Trans on Software Eng VSE-20n10(Oct 1994)pp774-784
  4. CR1995-0106(by RJB)

Bradfield92

  1. Julian C Bradfield
  2. Verifying Temporal Properties of Systems
  3. Birkhauser Boston Inc Cambridge MA 1992
  4. ISBN 0-817603625 CR9209-0661(F.3.1)
  5. =THEORY CORRECTNESS Petri nets

BradyDeMarco94

  1. Sheila Brady & Tom DeMarco
  2. Management Aided Software Engineering
  3. IEEE Software Magazine V11n6(Nov 1994)pp25-32
  4. Interview re management best of practice in software development at Apple. [ BradyDeMarco94.html ]

BraekHaugen94

  1. R Braek & O Haugen
  2. Engineering Real Time Systems
  3. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River NJ 1994 BCS Practitioner Series ISBN 0-13-034448-6
      presents an object-oriented methodology using SDL for complex distributed real-time systems and covers the complete life cycle.

BraffortHirschberg63

  1. Braffort & Hirschberg(Eds)
  2. Computer Programming & Formal Systems
  3. North Holland 1963
  4. =THEORY formal LISP languages

BraheSchmidt07

  1. Seen Brahe & Kjeld Schmidt
  2. The Story of a Working Workflow Management System
  3. ACM Proc GROUP'07 (Nov 2007) pp249-258 CR 0811-1106 ACM DOI [ 1316624.1316661 ]
  4. =EXPERIENCE SYSTEMS WORKFLOW BPEL XML SOA SERVICE LEGACY WFM PEOPLE DANISH BANK 2003-2007 ORCHESTRATION PORTAL TASK vs CASE
  5. CSCW::="Computer Supported Cooperative Work".
  6. WFM::="Workflow Management".
  7. SOA::="Service Oriented Architecture".
  8. Early attempts to program office procedures failed because exceptions to the procedures were common. How to make the result adaptable? How to fit in with the continuing creation and adaption of procedures/workflows. How to integrate existing (legacy) systems.
  9. Integrate systems by using SOA... encapsulate legacy code as a service. Workflow as glue.
  10. (dick)|-Workflow sytems/languages seems to be like scripting.
  11. Develop a workflow system iteratively.
  12. Get the developers and the users closely involved.
  13. Business's analyst's can get it wrong!
  14. Development followed Babbage's model: craft; division of labor; stepwise automation; more or less complete automation.
  15. Need to avoid fragmented tasks. People prefer complete cases to individual tasks. First task in process should assign remaining tasks in the case to same person. "We do not want to be a factory". Not task-centric, but case-centric. "It does not feel right " not to know the context of tasks.
  16. Another early task in each workflow is to determine if the task is simple enough to be automated or needs human discretion and guidance.
  17. Describing exceptions if difficult and time consuming. Better to bounce them to a human... and think about how to automate in a later iteration.
  18. Automating more kinds of processes is an optimization. Tweaking and Twisting the automated processes.
  19. Nearly a 20% gain in speed. 80-90% automated.
  20. No need to re-enter data into each application.
  21. People like to monitor automated processes.
  22. Tell the users when the system is becoming unstable. Tell them about bugs. Tell them about performance problems.
  23. Workflows integrated legacy systems into exiting processes -- so the old system could not be replaced until the workflow was redesigned, tested, and running with the new service provider. Increased coupling and dependency between systems.
  24. Application niche is a very regular system -- unlike, say -- medicine.

BrandtEtAl09

  1. Joel Brandt & Philip J Guo & Joel Lewenstein & Scott R Klemmer & Mira Dontcheva
  2. Opportunistic Programming: Writing code to prototype, ideat, and discover
  3. IEEE Software Magazine V25n6(Sep/Oct 2000)pp18-24
  4. =EXPERIMENT BRICOLLAGE POSTMODERN PROTOTYPING GLUE WWW/NET d.mix
  5. Principles for rapid prototyping
    1. Glue together existing high-level components.
    2. Add functionality via Copy-paste from the web.
    3. Iterate rapidly.
    4. Consider code to be impermanent.
    5. Expect and prepare for debugging.
    6. Use many languages.
    7. Don't expect good code.
    8. Need different version control.

BrandKlintVerhoef97

  1. M G J van den Brand & P Klint & C Verhoef
  2. Reverse Engineering and System Renovation -- an Annotated Bibliography
  3. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V22n1(Jan 1997)pp56-68 [ reverse.html ]

BrandtUden03

  1. D Scot Brandt & Lorna Uden
  2. Insight into Mental Models of Novice Internet Searchers Commun ACM V46n7(Jul 2003)pp133-136
  3. =ADVERT TKS KAT ACTA HCI USER PEOPLE WEB/NET
  4. Distinguishes mental models of tasks from conceptual models of systems.
  5. TKS::theory="Task Knowledge Structure", can express what people know about a task in a structured way.
  6. ACTA::technique="Applied Cognitive Task Analysis", interview ->outline; audit knowledge(cues+difficulties); simulate scenario giving cognitive processes, tabulate cognitive demands.
  7. KAT::technique="Knowledge Analysis of Tasks", break down ( objects, actions, goals, subgoals); identify central and generic properties; pseudocode procedures and taxonomy of terms use, add task knowledge needed to pseudocode.
  8. Novices may need more cues and structure to use search engines effectively.

BratthallWohlin02

  1. Lars Bratthall & Claes Wohlin
  2. Is it possible to decorate graphical Software design nd architecture models with qualitative information? -- and Experiment
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n12(Dec 2003)pp1181-1193
  4. =POLL 35 STUDENTS GRAPHIC COMPONENT METRICS RELATIONSHIPS
  5. How to show: A controls B, A is bigger than B, A is internally more complex than B, and A is harder to use then B.
  6. Rough consensus: control shown by position, size by area, complexity by darkening the inside or boundary.
  7. Demo for a car controller.

BrayHess95

  1. Olin Bray & Michael M Hess(both Sandia)
  2. Re-engineering a Configuration Management System
  3. IEEE Software Magazine V12n1(Jan 1995)pp55-63
  4. =DEMO NIAM
      Used resident experts, source code, system data to reengineer a 30 year old system.

    1. NIAM::=Natural Language Information-Analysis Methodology.
    2. NIAM::=Net{entity types. types of facts. interactions between types} verbal or graphic presentation deep-structure sentence tables of examples and counter examples of facts

      reinvention of LDST


BremleyHolmes00

  1. Jesse L Bremley & Donald Holmes
  2. Advanced Computer Topics for Precollege Students
  3. Proc SCI/ISAS2000 VI pp468-494 [SCI00]
  4. =EXPERIENCE EDUCATION AI
  5. How inner-city (Washington DC) children can do literature searches in AI and implement the results in programs.

Brender02

  1. Ronald F. Brender
  2. The BLISS programming language: a history
  3. Software - Practice & ExperienceV32n10(Aug 2002)pp955-981
  4. =HISTORY SYSTEMS LANGUAGE

BreretonBudgetHamilton98

  1. Pearl Brereton & David Budgen & Geof Hamilton
  2. Hypertext: The next Maintenance Mountain
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V31n12(Dec 1998)pp49-55
  4. =IDEA EVOLUTION WWW

BriandBunseDaly01

  1. Lionel C Briand & Christian Bunse & John W Daly
  2. A controlled Experiment for Evaluating Quality Guidelines on The Maintainability of Object-Oriented Designs
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V27n6(Jun 2001)pp513-530
  4. =EXPERIMENT MODULE DESIGN MAINTAINABILITY QUALITIES Coad Yourdon
  5. 33 students attempt to understand two different designs -- one set up to be bad and the other good. The students did bette r on the good.
  6. Good had low coupling, high cohesion, higher clarity/lower fuzziness/simplicity, more realistic inheritance.

BriandDalyWust99

  1. Lionel C Briand & John W Daly & J"urgen K W"ust
  2. A Unified Framework for Coupling Measurement in Object-Oriented Systems
  3. IEEE Trans SoftEng V25n1(Jan/Feb 1999)pp91-121
  4. =THEORY METRICS

BriandDebanbuMelo97

  1. Lionel C Briand & P Devanbu & W Melo
  2. An Investigation into Coupling Measures for C++

    [ICSE'97]

  3. =EXPERIMENT OBJECT-ORIENTED METRIC

BriandEtal99a

  1. Lionel C Briand & J"urgen W"ust & John W Daly
  2. A Unified framework for coupling measurement in Object-Oriented Systems
  3. IEEE Trans Softw Eng VSE-25n1(Jan/Feb 1999)pp91-121 CR9910-0775
  4. =SURVEY EMPIRICAL TECHNICAL QUALITY OBJECT-ORIENETED METRIC COUPLING MODULE

BriandEtal99b

  1. Lionel C Briand & J"urgen W"ust & Stefan V Ikonomovski & Hakim Lounis
  2. Investigating Quality Factors in Object-Oriented Designs: an Industrial Case Study
  3. ICSE'99, Proceeedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (May 1999)pp345-354
  4. =EMPIRICAL QUALITY OBJECT-ORIENETD METRIC
  5. LALO and UMD Principal Components Logistic Regression
  6. Better than [BenlarbiMelo99]
  7. Only 7 principal components account for variation in all the 30+metrics.
  8. The metrics are related to fault proneness...
  9. High numbers of method calls indicates fault prone classes.
  10. Differences between LALO and UMD -- friends not found in UMD. UMD more experienced pALO and UMD -- friends not found in UMD. UMD more experienced people.

BriandMorascaBasili99

  1. Lionel C Briand & Sandro Morasca & Victor R Basili
  2. Ddefining and Validating Measures or Object-Based High-Level Design
  3. IEEE Trans Soft Eng V25n5(Sep/Oct 1999)pp722-743
  4. =EMPIRICAL DESIGN METRICS GQM OBJECT-BASED ADA FAULT-PRONE
  5. NASA Goddard 3 projects
  6. declared high-level links in package interfaces
  7. is_component_of, uses, data declaration interaction(dependency), data subroutine interaction, generics?
  8. ->cohesion, coupling
  9. change requests -> faults and modules
  10. logistic regression using maximum likelihood
  11. avg-depth +number imported parts+low cohesion has some effect increasing chance of a fault being reported

BriandMaloWust02

  1. Lionel C Briand & Walcelio L Malo & J"urgen W"urst
  2. Assessing the Applicability of Fault-Proneness Models Across Object-Oriented Software Projects
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n7(Jul 2002)pp706-720
  4. =EXPERIMENT METRICS Object-Oriented ERRORS MARS logistic JAVA
  5. MARS::="Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines".
  6. Can predictions that work well on one project be used on a different one? In this case: yes. Same team and language with different managers and projects.
  7. Inheritance trees where short in both projects.

BriandMorascaBasili02

  1. Lionel Briand & Sandro Morasca & Victor R Basili
  2. An Operational process for goal-driven definition of Measures
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V28n12(Dec 2003)pp1106-1125
  4. =EXPERIENCE GQM/MEDEA METRIC DEFINITION QUALITIES DFDs UML TRIO+

BriandWust01

  1. Lionel C Briand & J"urgen W"urst
  2. Modeling Development Effort in Object-Oriented Systems using Design Properties
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V27n11(Nov 2001)pp963-986
  4. =ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE EFFORT SIZE C++ METRICS LIOO
  5. Interface sizes (NMIMP, NMINH, NA, NM) are a good predictor of the effort needed to implement a class.
  6. Used regression trees and poisson regression work well.
  7. Measures of coupling and cohesion do not increase accuracy of estimates.
  8. ?? inherited methods and few implemented methods lower effort.

BriandEtal05

  1. Lionel C Briand & Yvan Labiche & Massimiliano Di Penta & Han (Daphne) Yan-Bondoc
  2. An experimental investigation of formality in UML-based Development
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V31n10(Oct 2005)pp833-849
  4. =EXPERIMENT OCL UML COMPREHENSION INSPECTION EVOLUTION MAINTENANCE
  5. OCL improves comprehension, defect detection, maitenance of UML models of software by small ammounts depending on the OCL experience of the students.

BriandLabicheLeduc06

  1. Lionel C Briand & Yvan Labiche & Johanne Leduc
  2. Toward the Reverse Engineering of UML Sequence Diagrams for distributed Java Software
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V32n9(Sep 2006)pp642-663
  4. =DEMO MAINTENANCE DYNAMIC TOOL NONSEQUENTIAL REVERSE JAVA UML
  5. Uses aspects to instrument distributed software and so log the calls between objects.
  6. Recognises conditions and so one sideof alt constructions (only).

Briggs93

  1. Albert W Briggs Jr
  2. Mathematics for Liberal Arts Students
  3. American Math Monthly V100n2(Feb 1993)pp162-166
  4. education analysis skills proof
      Description of evolution from a math course that teaches more or less useless pre-solved problems to the teaching of problem solving itself. page 164. specific goals: students learn:
    1. "1. to raise questions and make conjectures[...]
    2. 2. to test those conjectures
    3. 3. to settle definitely those questions and conjectures, or at least make progress toward such a settlement,
    4. 4. to raise more questions as a result of this process,
    5. 5. to read with enough precision to understand the questions and investigations of others,
    6. 6. to write with enough precision to communicate their investigations to others."
    7. "[...] students take to forming guesses and testing them with examples like ducks to water. But getting them to prove their guesses, or to deduce things from their guesses[...]is killingly hard. It is so hard that I have to wonder whether deduction[...] is as natural a human tendency as we[mathematicians] suppose."

Brin98

    .Seee
  1. David Brin
  2. The Transparent Society...
  3. Addison-Wesley1998 ISBN 0-201-32802-X
  4. =HISTORY =ESSAY SOCIETY ETHICS PRIVACY RISKS NET/WWW CRYPTOGRAPHY SSN VIDEO
  5. Argues that often more information is better than less.
  6. Adding a reverse flow is a way to solve a problem with an assymetric flow.
  7. Most solutions are partial.
  8. Secrecy that decreases accountability is bad for a society. Security, safety, & ideas can be improved by open information flows and criticism.
  9. Drops many names. Discusses opposing positions.
  10. Notes confusion between passwords and IDs. Example: SSN is an ID used by many systems as a password.

BrinchHansen81

  1. Per Brinch-Hansen
  2. The EDISON Papers
  3. Software - Practice and Experience V11n4 (Apr 1981) QV [BrinchHansen83]
  4. =DEMO DDD data languages optimization non-sequential EDISON BNF

BrinchHansen83

  1. Per Brinch-Hansen
  2. Programming a Personal Computer
  3. Prentice Hall International 1983 QV [BrinchHansen81]
  4. =DEMO DDD data languages optimization non-sequential EDISON BNF

BrinchHansen85

  1. Per Brinch-Hansen
  2. On Pascal Compilers
  3. Prentice Hall International
  4. =SURVEY DDD

BrinchHansen99

  1. Per Brinch Hansen
  2. Java's Insecure Parallelism
  3. ACM SIGPLAN Notes V34n4(Apr 1999)pp38-45
  4. =ESSAY JAVA TECHNICAL NON_SEQUENTIAL RISKS
  5. Need to have all variables are private and all public methods synchronized to get predicatable parallelism.
  6. Note. Also see [Hartley99]

Britcher96

  1. Bob Britcher
  2. A Few (proposed) fundamental laws of programming
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V29N3(Mar 1996)p136(Open channel)
      The Law of Rapid Specialization
    1. In programming major changes in the product can occur in an instant
    2. vs time to change plant or physical products

      The Law of Fallibility

    3. The most careful reasoning about a simple sentence can lead to a wrong conclusion about the real world
    4. Programmers have to reduce big "word-problems" to logic.

      The Law of Intellectual Gravity

    5. Programs can be as massive(in there own way) as physical objcts.

      The Law of Permannence

    6. Programs do not become extinct. They are not discarded, they are piled up, combined, absorbed, breeding and spreading.

Brittan80

  1. Design for a Changing Environment
  2. Comp Jnl v23 n1 pp13-19
  3. =DEMO maintenance formal ENGINEERING lifecycle

BrockHunt99

  1. Bishop C Brock & Warren A Hunt Jr
  2. Formal Analysis of the Motorola CAP DSP
  3. In [HincheyBowen99] pp-
  4. =EXPERIENCE HARDWARE DESIGN V&V VERIFICATION FORMAL LOGIC TOOL ACL2

Brodaetal94

  1. Broda & Eisenbach & Khoshnevisan & Steve Vickers<sjv@doc.ic.ac.uk>
  2. Reasoned Programming
  3. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ 1994 $40 ISBN 0-13-098831-6 CR9607-0469:
  4. =TEXT Formal miranda modular-2

Brodine06

  1. Dick Brodine
  2. Mathematical Server Sizing
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n7(Jul 2006)pp91-93
  4. =ADVERT MATH QUEUING THEORY WEB/NET Trivedi
  5. Quotes a useful formulas modeling server performance.
  6. TRIVEDI::=following
    Net
    1. Kishor S Trivedi's model for M clients at rate λ to a server that handles them at rate μ -- both with exponential distributions.
    2. E[Response_time] = M/E[T] - 1/λ),
    3. E[T]=μ *(1-p0),
    4. p0:=P[0 requestss in system],
    5. p0=1/(+[n:0..M]((λ/μ)^n)*(fact(M)/fact(M-n)))

    (End of Net)

  7. Shows a screen short of a Java application that helps.

Brooks77

  1. Frederick P Brooks Jr
  2. The Computer "Scientist" as Toolsmith -- Studies in Interactive Computer Graphics
  3. Proc IFIP 77 (North Holland Pub Co 1977) pp625-634 (Invited Paper)
  4. =EXPERIENCE 10years USER ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS
  5. p634:
      The architect Christopher Alexander, in his "Notes on the Synthesis of Form", makes the penetrating observation that the only way to achieve good fit between any design and its requirements is to find misfits and remove them; there is no direct way to derive form from requirements.

Brooks82

  1. Frederick P Brooks Jr
  2. The Mythical Man-Month - essays on software engineering
  3. Addison-Wesley Ma and CA USA 1982
  4. =survey costs PEOPLE

Brooks87

  1. Frederick P Brooks Jr
  2. No Silver Bullets
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V20n4(April 1987) IEEE Press.
  4. =survey costs
  5. Predicts no great reduction in the costs of developing software.
    But
    1. See [Cox90a] [Harel92] [FraserManci08]

    (Close But )

Brooks95

  1. Frederick P Brooks Jr
  2. The Mythical Man-Month: Anniversary Edition
  3. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co Inc 1995
  4. Parts from Chapter 19 in pp57-60 IEEE Software Magazine (Sep 1995)
  5. Also speech at the ICSE 17
  6. =HISTORY PEOPLE COSTS MS-PROCESS

    [Keuffel95b]


      Chapter 19
    1. waterfall process is wrong. Early functinal prototype and incremental build are ways to GROW software -
    2. better to be wrong than vague. User distributions.
    3. design for evolution/family of products from the start(Parnas)
    4. peopleware empowerment. "the power of giving up power" in IBM and in MS

      [McCarthyJ95a] MS Process: Jim McCarthy of Microsoft power of teams owning a set of features and controlling define+biuld+ship. 4..5 specialities: testing, writing, building. Settle own squabbles. Effect not reported.

    5. encapsulation is OK - I was wrong and Parnas right
    6. Brooks law: Boehm, Abdel-Hamid Madnick [Abdel-Hamid96]
    7. Computers brought Fluidity to ...drawings, plans, ...texts, ...spreadsheets
    8. Metaprogramming: hypercard... pre-VBX!

Brooks96

  1. Frederick P Brooks Jr
  2. The Computer scientist as Toolsmith II
  3. Comm ACM V39n3(Mar 1996)pp61-68
  4. science & Engineering

Brough01

  1. Mike Brough
  2. The History of YSM

    [ ysmhist.pdf ]

  3. =HISTORY METHODS YSM Yourdon

BrooksD08

  1. David A brooks
  2. An Introduction to HTML and JavaScript for Scientists and Engineers
  3. Springer-Verlag Secaucus NJ ISBN 1846386565 CR 0810-0929
  4. =UNREAD =TEXT =REFERENCE INTRODUCTION HTML JAVASCRIPT CSS
  5. Notes [click here [socket symbol] if you can fill this hole]

Brown83

  1. ?? Brown
  2. Error Messages: The neglected area of the man-machine interface?
  3. Commun ACM 26 4 pp246-249
  4. =IDEA USER ERRORS

Brownbridge90

  1. David Brownbridge(drb@paxis.co.uk)
  2. Using Z to Develop a CASE Toolset
  3. pp142-149 in Nicholls90
  4. =EXPERIENCE SSADM Z CASE
  5. 340 pages of Z -> 37KLOC object-oriented in 11 months
  6. no need of refinement
  7. needed for typechecker
  8. formal specification reviews are needed
  9. needed roadmap of hierarchy

BrownChervanyReinicke07

  1. Susan A Brown & Norman L Chervany & Bryan A Reinicke
  2. What matters when introducing new information technology
  3. Commun ACM V50n9(Sep 2007)pp91-96
  4. =SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES =EXPERIENCE
  5. Surveyed the literature and made list of 5 areas: Commitment, Knowledge, Communication, Planning, Infrastructure.
  6. Took 5 projects and looked for occurences of "disconnects": Commitment(59), Knowledge(18), Communication(53), Planning(25), Infrastructure(30).
  7. Figure 2 show relative frequency accross 4 phases: Initiation(Knowledge), Adoption(Communications), Adaption(Infrastructure), Acceptance(Infrastructure+Commitment).
  8. Table 3 lists 6 problems, identifies a area and suggests solutions. For example: If you can't identify the best new technology you have a Knowledge problem -- invest in employee education and create a central repository for sharing tech information.

BrownEarlMcDermid92

  1. Alan W Brown & Anthony N Earl & John A McDermid
  2. Software Engineering Environments: Automated Support for Software Engineering
  3. McGraw-Hill NY NY 1992 ISBN 0-07-707432-7 CR9409-0606
  4. =ADVERTS CASE TOOLS
      CR(R L Glass) advocacy of research with ignorance of the marketplace + highlevel abstraction and philosophy

BrownMalveauMcCormickMowbray98

  1. William J Brown & & R C Malveau & Hays W McCormick III & T J Mowbray
  2. AntiPattern: refactoring software, architectures, and projects in crisis
  3. John Wiley & Sons, New York NY(1999) ISBN 0-471-32929-0 CR9908-0593
  4. =PATTERNS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REFACTOR EVOLUTION
  5. BallOfMud := "one class becomes responsible for everything that doesn't fit elsewhere."

BrownMcCormickThomas99

  1. William J Brown & Hays W McCormick III & Scott H Thomas
  2. AntiPattern and Patterns in Software configuration management
  3. John Wiley & Sons, New York NY(1999) ISBN 0-471-32929-0 CR9908-0593
  4. =PATTERNS SCM

BrowneMenon04

  1. Glen J Browne & Nirup M Menon
  2. Network Effects & social dilemmas in Technology Industries
  3. IEEE Software Magazine V21n5(Sep /Oct 2004)pp44-50
  4. =Theory Markets Economics

BrowneMoore97

  1. Shirley V Browne & James W Moore
  2. Reuse Library Interoperability

    [Harandi97] pp182-189

  3. =ADVERT RIG WEB/NET REUSE URNs DATA MODEL RIG=http://www.rig.org.

BrownN96

  1. Norm Brown
  2. Industrial-Strength Management Strategies
  3. IEEE Software Magazine VSE13N4(Jul 1996)pp94-103
  4. =SURVEY people DoD managers list
  5. 9 best practices::=risk management & agreeed interfaces & formal inspections(not reviews) & metics & defect tracking & quality gates on tiny steps & configuration management & visible control panel & people aware accountability

BrownP91

  1. Patrick Brown
  2. Integrated hypertext and program understanding tools
  3. IBM Syst J V30n3(1991)pp363-392
  4. =TOOL TECHNICAL
  5. CR 9211-0872(N Zvegintov)
      CR92011-0875 is by N Zvegintov and refers to the lack of tools to record and maintain links between the domain and the implementation.

      Multiple{languages, platforms(IBM), uses, data/tools}

      ISEA Integrated SoftwareEngineering Applications tools platform OS/2 + VM + MVS, Distributed client &/| server

      CodeNavigator helps programmers {undertand software, analying change requests, Diagnosis} {what, where, how}-used, flows{logic, calling,...}, annotations, source code brousing

      p369 "Program analysis can create databases that may grow to many times the size of the original source library"

      500KLOC -> too big for wkstn DB

      Staged analysis, raw vs derived data

      flexible USER interfaces

    1. TRAILS::= prototype hypertext tool

      linking program data - HIPO | lexical afinity |Data model attributes

      p389: "Lost in Hyperspace" - "loosing track of what they are looking at or how they got there"


BrownShipmanVetter07

  1. Jeff Brown & Bill Shipman & Ron Vetter
  2. SMS: The Short Messaging Service
  3. IEEE Computer Magazine V40n12(Dec 2007)pp106-110
  4. =STANDARD SMS PROTOCOL CELL MOBILE PHONE Shortcodes WAP EMAIL
  5. SMS::protocol="Short Message Service", not just for teenagers, also connects to the web and EMail.

BrownswordOberndorfSledge00

  1. Lisa Brownsword & Tricia Oberndorf & Carol A Sledge (SEI)
  2. Developing new processes for COTS bases systems
  3. IEEE Software Magazine V17n3(Jul/Aug 2000)pp48-55
  4. =IDEA PROCESS COMPONENTS COTS
  5. CBS:="COTS based system", COTS:="commercial off the shelf".
  6. Requirements, marketplce, and architecture/design are defined and tradedog at once. cf [Boehm00?]
  7. engineering+business+project areas.
  8. architecture is only assett youown and so is strategic and must beflexible.

Broy93

  1. Manfred Broy
  2. Functional Specifications of time-sensitive Communicating systems
  3. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol V2n1(Jan 1993)pp1-46 CR9311-0858
  4. =THEORY PURPOSE NON_SEQUENTIAL
  5. (dick)|-Contacted Manfred by Email about a typo. Archive on Wiley. Copy in Office.

Broy01

  1. Manfred Broy
  2. Toward a Mathematical Foundation of software engineering Methods
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V27n11(Jan 2001)pp42-57 CR0102-0065
  4. =THEORY METHODS ALGEBRA DIGRAPH FSM/STD DFDs ADT ERD SEQUENCE DATA
  5. Not object oriented.

BroyNelson89

  1. Manfred Broy & Greg Nelson
  2. Can fair choice be added to Dijkstra's calculus
  3. Report 38 (Feb 1989) from Digital Equipment Corpn Systems Research Center Palo Alto CA 94301
  4. =THEORY guarded-commands
  5. see BroyNelson94

BroyNelson94

  1. Manfred Broy & Greg Nelson
  2. Adding fair choice to Dijkstra's calculus
  3. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst V16n3(May 1994)pp924-938 CR9508-0601
  4. =THEORY guarded-commands
  5. see BroyNelson89

Brun-ColtonWall95

  1. Francoise Brun-Colton & Patricia Wall
  2. Using Video to Re-Present the User
  3. Commun ACM V38n5(May 1995)pp61-71
  4. =EXPERIENCE USER VIDEO DOCUMENTATION

BrunsChandra03

  1. Glenn Bruns & Satish Chandra
  2. Searching for Points-To Analysis
  3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V29n10(Oct 2003)pp883-897
  4. =ALGORITHMS POINTERS CODE DATA LTS CFG SEMANTICS REACHABILITY

Brunner75

  1. John Brunner
  2. The Shockwave Rider
  3. Harper & Row 1975 ISBN 0-060-10559-3
  4. =NOVEL SF NETWORK WORMS PREDICTION MARKETS TARNOVER TOFFLER
  5. Wikipedia [ The_Shockwave_Rider ]
  6. Review 1976 [ 1095302.1095305 ]

BruntinkDeursenEngelenTourwe05

  1. Magiel Bruntink & Arie van Deursen & Remco van Engelen & Tom Tourwh One the use of clone detection for identifying crosscutting concern code
  2. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V31n10(Oct 2005)pp801-818
  3. =CASE STUDY CODE C ASPECTS TOOLS Clone ccdiml CCFinder Komondor's PDG-DUP
  4. Tools can find many examples of duplicated code for common tasks (eg. testing for NULL).
  5. But if set to find more they become imprecise and retrieve irrelevant code.
  6. Humans do better.
  7. Only Concerns relevant to weaknesses in C considered. Memory, null pointers, r ange checking, error handling, & tracing calls.

Bryant90

  1. Tony Bryant
  2. Structured methodologies and formal notations: Developing a framework for synthesis and investigation
  3. pp229-241 in Nicholls90
  4. =THEORY Z SSADM DEF STAN 0055
      Chapter 2 section 4.1 clash between rigid method and dynamic system page 231

BrylowPalsberg04

  1. Dennis Brylow & Jens Palsberg
  2. Deadline Ana