{"title":"Architecture flow diagrams under Teamwork","authors":"T. Nicinski","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205862","url":null,"abstract":"The Teamwork CASE tool allows data flow diagrams (DFDs) to be maintained for structured analysis. Fermilab has extended Teamwork under UNIX to permit Hatley and Pirbhai architecture flow diagrams (AFDs) to be associated with DFDs and subsequently maintained. This extension, called TWKAFD, allows a user to open an AFD, graphically edit it, and replace it into a TWKAFD maintained library. Other aspects of Hatley and Pirbhai's methodology are supported. This paper presents a quick tutorial on architecture diagrams. It then describes the user's view of TWKAFD, the experiences incorporating it into Teamwork, and the successes with using the architecture diagram methodology along with the shortcomings of using the Teamwork/TWKAFD tool.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131391988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A systematic approach to CASE selection","authors":"K. Schneider","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205835","url":null,"abstract":"Seven CASE tools were evaluated and compared by the author and a group of graduate students. From the results of the author's evaluations, a rather fundamental topic is presented as an example to highlight some of the problems that arise during CASE selection. The identified problems especially seem to hit potential CASE users who are yet unfamiliar with current CASE technology. An approach is introduced and discussed aiming at a more systematic evaluation of tools without the need of CASE experts to perform it. Reuse of experience is suggested to reduce effort; the approach allows managers to directly express their preferences and constraints without being too much bothered by technological issues. Their individual decisions influence the process and the results of the evaluation. In introducing the approach step by step, they show how more and more hidden problems from the above example are mastered. This uncovers a number of crucial points which determine whether CASE selection will satisfy the potential user, i.e. if it can be successful or if it is bound to fail.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"243 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122817765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A linear combination software reliability modeling tool with a graphically-oriented user interface","authors":"A. Nikora, Michael R. Lyu, T. Antczak","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205831","url":null,"abstract":"Previously the authors have shown that forming linear combination of model results tends to yield more accurate predictions of software reliability. Using linear combinations also simplifies the practitioner's task of deciding which model or models to apply to a particular development effort. Currently, no commercially available tools permit such combinations to be formed within the environment provided by the tool. Most software reliability modeling tools also do not take advantage of the high-resolution displays available today. Performing actions within the tool may be awkward, and the output of the tools may be understandable only to a specialist. They propose a software reliability modeling tool that allows users to formulate linear combination models, that can be operated by non-specialists, and that produces results in a form understandable by software developers and managers.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"45 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129753663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"An intelligent approach to verification and testing of the configurator","authors":"Pei-Lei Tu, Jen-Yao Chung, C.N. Nikolaou","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205849","url":null,"abstract":"The configurator verification requires three basic processes: generating the test data, analyzing the actual and expected outputs, and fixing the deviations. The typical verification processes of today's configurators are to manually provide the test case and expected output, and then analyze the differences between the expected and actual test outputs. This manual approach not only constrains the testing and verification of the configurator but also is not feasible for the large computer configurator program such as IBM ES/900. An intelligent approach to verification and testing of large computer configurators is introduced where test data are generated automatically and test results are analyzed intelligently with little human intervention. This approach utilizes a generic configurator model where the a priori computer configurator knowledge is captured and applied to generate a large number of potential test data and to analyze the test results automatically. With this intelligent approach, human experts' knowledge and skills can be better utilized to initialize the configurator model and to review the potential faults of the configurator program as revealed by the testing results.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127182317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introducing IEEE-CS 1175: a standard for tool interconnections","authors":"P. Eirich","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205838","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205838","url":null,"abstract":"The IEEE Computer Society's (IEEE-CS) 1175 standard, Trial-Use Standard Reference Model for Computing System Tool Interconnections, exhibits a unique structure to assist the buyers, builders, testers, and users of professional computing tools. The standard not only provides a means to exchange software requirements and design information among different kinds of tools, it also contains guidance on the roles and usage of tools, both within organizations and within system architectures. Further, it assists tool users by providing terminology to help describe the characteristics of a tool-to-tool interchange that might be required. This paper summarizes the key elements of the IEEE-CS 1175 standard, which has been approved by the IEEE Computer Society for trial use, and describes how it can be applied to assist software engineering practitioners.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116587264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introducing EIA-CDIF: the CASE Data Interchange Format Standard","authors":"B. Parker","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205839","url":null,"abstract":"The Electronic Industries Association (EIA) released the CASE Data Interchange Format (CDIF) Interim Standards in July 1991. These standards were formulated by the EIA CDIF Technical Committee to facilitate movement of information between computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tools. CDIF Interim Standards are a family of standards that provide the vendor independent, method independent definitions of CASE data concepts necessary for information exchange. This paper provides an overview of the CDIF Interim Standards, summarizes prototyping efforts in progress, and outlines future directions for CDIF.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122548990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introducing ANSI-X3.138-1988: a standard for information resource dictionary system (IRDS)","authors":"B. Parker","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205841","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205841","url":null,"abstract":"The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) released its standard for information resources dictionary systems on 19 October 1988. The standard was formulated by the ANSI Technical Committee for Information Resources and Dictionary (X3H4), a Technical Committee of the ANSI Accredited Standards Committee for Information Processing Systems (X3). The purpose of the standard is to define the requirements of a software tool used to describe, document, control, protect, and provide access to information about the information assets of an organization. Recently, two additional standards have been approved to supplement the basic standard. One, X3.185, addresses the interface requirements between an IRDS and external software. The other, X3.195, addresses export/import requirements for exchanging information between ANSI IRDSs. This paper summarizes the conceptual evolution of repositories, provides an overview of the IRDS standards and outlines future directions for evolution of IRDS standards.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127786926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OpenProcess/6000: a total solution for process management","authors":"G. Sagols","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205854","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205854","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a new approach in the domain of process modeling and process enactment, proposed by IBM and CAP Gemini Sogeti (CGS) on the IBM RISC System/6000. This paper starts with a short history of the CASE tools. The specific needs are detailed specially the need for process modeling and enactment. The requirements for an efficient process modeling and enactment are detailed. The paper ends with a summary of the new approach stressing on the adaptability to the customer environment, using a set of consulting services (OpenProcess/6000), tightly coupled with a flexible process tool from CGS (Process WEAVER).<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129641018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Evaluating and selecting testing tools","authors":"R. Poston, M. P. Sexton","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205836","url":null,"abstract":"The authors consider how a data collection system that leads a company to successful tool selections must be carefully devised. They discuss the analysis of user needs and the establishment of tool selection criteria. They suggest a number of standards, articles and surveys which will help in the search for tools and provide a procedure for rating them.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":150873,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133067224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}