ACM Stand.最新文献

{"title":"Tests, measurements, and automatic speech recognition","authors":"D. S. Pallett, J. Baker","doi":"10.1145/266231.266238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/266231.266238","url":null,"abstract":"igure One shows a representative test cycle for tests implemented by the NIST group. A test cycle is initiated with an analysis and planning phase, typically coordinated by a group of researchers, research sponsors, and NIST staff. During this phase, test protocols and implementation schedules are defined. A data-collection phase leads to the creation or identification of standardized speech and natural language corpora, distributed to a community of core technology developers. In most cases, a portion of the corpora is held in reserve by NIST as performance assessment test material. At agreed-upon times, NIST defines and releases development and evaluation test sets to the core technology developers, and they, in turn, provide NIST with the results of their locally-implemented tests. NIST then produces a detailed set of uniformly-scored tabulated results, including the results of numerous paired-comparison statistical significance tests and other analyses. These test results and their scientific implications then become an important matter for discussion at technical meetings. The extent of NIST's work is illustrated by a look at some 60 technical papers on speech recognition submitted to the 1996 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. Twenty-eight of the 60 papers reported results based on the use of NIST-defined test data, test methodologies, and NIST-implemented benchmark tests. Of these 28 papers, 16 were by researchers in the United States and 12 were from other nations. From Dragon Systems' perspective, the NIST reference speech database measurement and testing methodologies are important for research and necessary to advance the technology. While ideas are plentiful , testing is expensive; researchers and research resources are costly. So sharing data makes sense. Large common databases are statistically more meaningful than smaller proprietary ones, and using these large databases minimizes dead-end approaches. At the speech-recognition workshops where results of the NIST's benchmark tests are presented, there are opportunities to compare results and the different approaches pursued at different laboratories. In this way the entire community benefits.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128270328","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":"Software reuse standards","authors":"J. Baldo, J. Moore, D. Rine","doi":"10.1145/260558.260559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/260558.260559","url":null,"abstract":"m To explore the impact of current software standards on software reuse, we describe the analysis, findings, and recommendations of the IEEE Software Engineering Standards Committee (SESC) Reuse Planning Group. The object of the Reuse Planning Group was to define, for the SESC, a statement of direction for IEEE standards related to the analysis, design, implementation, validation, verification, documentation, and maintenance of reusable software assets as well as supporting infrastructure in the creation of new applications. We also examine the current state of software reuse standards by the following: (1) an analysis of the needs of various users of standards and a classification of the needs with respect to the type of reuse standards that might be written; (2) a set of normative documents on the subject of software reuse, identified and evaluated for the role they might play in the standardization process; (3) a program element view of the IEEE Software Engineering Standards Committee collection, into which reuse standards must fit; and (4) recommendations for standardization projects. nsertion of any new innovation by an organization requires adoption, utilization, and management of the new technology. The motive for an organization to adopt a new technology is based on expectations for achieving a set of goals. The insertion of software reuse technologies is no different from other innovations, in that they must be adopted, utilized, and managed in software product development or maintenance lifecycles. The following goals are usually stated for software reuse: (1) the organization expects product development or maintenance efforts to decrease; (2) the organization expects an increase in product quality; and (3) the organization expects a decrease in product time-to-market. Although the benefits of software reuse have been discussed in the literature for several decades, it remains an elusive goal. Successful insertion of new technology depends on both technical and nontechnical factors. It is important that both be adequately addressed. Clearly, software standards are an important technical issue, and while explicit software reuse standards do not exist, a number of current de facto and official government standards are making an impact. To explore the impact of current software standards on software reuse, we describe the analysis, findings, and recommendations of the IEEE Software Engineering Standards Committee (SESC) Reuse Planning Group. The goal of the Group was to define, for the SESC, a statement of direction for IEEE standards on the analysis, design, implementation, validation, verification, documentation, and maintenance of reusable software assets, as well as their supporting infrastructure in the creation of new applications. We examine the current state of software reuse standards by addressing the following topics: (1) the needs of various users of standards and a classification of those needs with respect to kinds of reuse ","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116546212","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":"The cost of standardizing components for software reuse","authors":"G. Succi, Francesco Baruchelli","doi":"10.1145/260558.260561","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/260558.260561","url":null,"abstract":"m Software reuse can be an important step towards increasing productivity and quality. A necessary condition for its success is standardization of reusable components at each level of the software lifecycle. Standardization can be looked at in two different ways: externally (the interface), and internally (functionality). Both of these are fundamental, and imply extra costs in the development of components. The external perspective is the usual one—it considers the appearance of the components and the ways they are related to the rest of the world. The internal perspective is strongly related to reuse: here a component is considered standard when its functionality is common among all systems belonging to a particular domain; such components are usually discovered following domain analysis. A qualitative analysis of these two approaches to standards and reuse led us to a simple model showing the extra costs of standardizing reusable software components. he reuse of existing software in the development of new systems is widely studied. Despite its benefits, software reuse is not a guaranteed success, and is generally a cost-intensive investment. Among the many factors that can affect the success of a reuse program is the design and realization of the components likely to be reused, and particularly their adequate standardization. When dealing with standards and resuable software, we must first see a component as not only a code module, but as all the other products of the software lifecycle, as for instance the design and requirements. The higher the level of the component, the greater the benefits of its reuse. Given a software component in a reuse context, we can choose more than one perspective from which to determine whether or not it is standard. We can look at the interface or at its functionality. Both are equally important for the success of a reuse program. In fact, a component without an interface that is immediately understandable and easy to integrate and adapt, i.e., a component not designed with a “plug and play” philosophy, implies adaptation and integration costs which can easily overrun the value of the component. At the same time, a perfect “plug and play” interface can be nearly useless if it is used for a component that is almost unique and thus has practically no chance of being reused. In the following we will define more precisely a standard reusable software component from the two perspectives, and perform a qualitative analysis of the cost of its standardization.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127701759","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":"Standardizing production of domain components","authors":"J. Favaro","doi":"10.1145/260558.260562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/260558.260562","url":null,"abstract":"m Domain analysis is a promising path for identifying standard software architectures. Recent advances in the technology and documentation of objectoriented frameworks have made it possible to link the products of domain analysis to concrete software artifacts. The result is a coherent lifecycle process for the domain engineering of reusable components. or nearly two decades, software engineers attempted to create a software component industry based on a model of a repository of “components” or “parts” that could be accessed by many different kinds of (possibly totally unrelated) applications. It took several years of spectacular failures to make it clear that this approach could not succeed. It became increasingly clear that components could only be produced in the context of a domain. Such a domain might be telecommunications, banking, etc. Most current efforts are aimed at designing what are known as domain architectures—that is, the standard architectures of systems created in particular domains. In the computer hardware area, this has been accomplished with great success: A personal computer has a motherboard, expander slots, keyboard, monitor, etc., conformant to a standard architecture. But in the software area, much less is known. With the identification of a domain architecture, it becomes possible to develop systematically reusable domain components that fit within that domain architecture (via suitable interconnection mechanisms). The discipline that has arisen around standardizing production of domain components is known as domain analysis. The companion discipline of domain engineering—the systematic creation of domain architectures based upon the results of domain analysis—has flourished in recent years with the rise of object-oriented framework technologies and patterns.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122655336","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":"Standardizing domain-specific components: a case study","authors":"Massimo Fenaroli, A. Valerio","doi":"10.1145/260558.260563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/260558.260563","url":null,"abstract":"m Thera S.p.A. is a software house that produces finished and semi-finished software and provides smaller software organizations in Northern Italy with base application components on which they can build and specialize new products. Thera senior management is strongly committed to improving software development, in pursuit of business objectives. A key factor for improving software production is the introduction of standard domain analysis methods. Its success will be a cornerstone in the global development process in which all the software production will be redesigned and standardized on the basis of standard domain analysis and on the software reuse experience gained from it. hera S.p.A. is a software house, one of whose main business goals is to develop software products for the rational management of firms and their resources by evolving software systems that introduce well-defined, manageable, and flexible solutions for business, management, and production problems. Thera’s target customers are mainly manufacturers (of production management systems), insurance companies (actuarial management systems) and commercial organizations (accounting and commercial systems). In addition, Thera develops “ad hoc” products for clients with specific needs. It also produces semi-finished software products, acting as a supplier to smaller software organizations in Northern Italy by providing them with application base components. Even though Thera’s products already enjoy commercial success, senior management is strongly committed to improving the development process in order to pursue the following business objectives:","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"184 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124663375","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":"Standard reuse practices: many myths vs. a reality","authors":"S. Doublait","doi":"10.1145/260558.260565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/260558.260565","url":null,"abstract":"m Several myths about standard software reuse practices are reviewed here. We examine how each myth has been addressed at Sodalia, a company with practical experience with reuse over the past few years. Sodalia has embraced standard reuse as a key strategic imperative to reach its objectives of highquality, rapidly deployed telecommunications software applications. Sodalia, which is qualified at ISO-9001, has been assessed at level 2 of the SEI’s Capability Maturity Model (currently seeking level 3) and is deeply invested into the definition and deployment of a corporate-wide standard reuse program that makes it among the leading reuse practitioners in Europe. bject technologies have reached a level of maturity at which companies in Europe and the United States have adopted and applied them to industrial applications for a sufficiently long period of time to assess benefits such as quality and adaptability. However, benefits reaped from software reuse seem more difficult to attain, and have not been demonstrated on a significant scale. Despite this, reuse is widely recognized as one of the major factors in enhancing software development, in terms of both reduced time-to-market and quality improvement. Other advantages include productivity improvement (through shared maintenance), interoperability/compatibility (ensured by uniform behavior of a family of applications), standardization (standards are embedded inside reusable components), and capture of domain knowledge (during domain analysis). The complexity of software reuse is not due to the inherent complexity of individual reuse activities, which are often relatively simple and well understood—the difficulty lies in the large number of technical and managerial issues, which must be tackled simultaneously, and their interdependencies. Moreover, the impact of reuse on organization, management, strategy, marketing, business processes, software development, technologies, corporate culture, communication is often either underestimated or excessively emphasized. As a result software reuse is seen as a holy grail, unreachable to many. We want to review several myths about software reuse, which often act as roadblocks to widespread adoption of reuse as standard software engineering practice. We examine how each myth has been addressed at Sodalia, a three-year software development joint venture between Bell Atlantic (U.S.A.) and Telecom Italia. The company has embraced systematic reuse as a key strategic imperative to reach its objectives of high-quality, rapidly deployed telecommunications software applications.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116345190","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":"Standardizing the reuse of software processes","authors":"G. Succi, L. Benedicenti, P. Predonzani, T. Vernazza","doi":"10.1145/260558.260564","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/260558.260564","url":null,"abstract":"m We describe a model to define a set of standard reusable processes. To standardize and reuse a software process, we first need to describe it. We adopt Ivar Jacobson’s use cases as a starting point and then generate scenarios and identify people and their roles. The data collected are significant enough to start mapping the enterprise—we use an OMT-like technique. By adopting activity-based management, it is possible to validate the “off-line” model directly “on-line.” After the necessary corrections, the model is a good representation of the firm’s real production process. This forms the basis for the reengineering process. process is a set of activities organized to reach a goal [Feiler and Humphrey 1992]. A process may follow predefined prescriptions, and it usually has one or more descriptions. We can reuse the prescriptions of an old process for a new one. We can define a new process that fits the descriptions of an old one. In all these cases, we speak of process reuse. We define process reuse as the replica of a set of actions of an already performed process in a new environment. Process reuse is useful in almost any field: All of industrialization has been viewed as the result of defining, standardizing, and replicating processes [Rullani 1988]. It is especially useful where there is a lack of consolidated practice, as in the software industry. The CMM and the ISO 9000 share this view: They require some reuse of predefined software processes. ISO 9000 is almost entirely about defining a process schema to ensure that a company satisfies its own goals and monitoring how effectively the company follows the schema. CMM level 2 elicits a firm’s underlying and hidden practices; further levels try to define them (level 3), handle and evaluate them properly (level 4), and make them work efficiently (level 5). The CMM-derived PSP focuses on teaching programmers how to describe, to improve, and to reuse their processes. Process reuse enables firms to create a set of corporate processes. Corporate processes may define the “essence” of a firm, the know-how that remains regardless of employee turnover. Well-structured corporate processes help new employees to get acquainted with the firm. Business process reengineering is applicable only when the process is defined, i.e., only if a set of corporate processes is in place. Corporate processes need standardization: It is possible to define a corporate process only through a systematic definition of the key processes that are already in place. Therefore, process reuse and process standardization are two faces of the same coin. We explore this issue by describing Gertrude, a model to define a set of standard reusable processes. Standardizing the Reuse of Software Processes S U P P O R T I N G A R T I C L E ★","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122065197","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":"Software reuse and standardization for SMEs: the CIM-EXP perspective","authors":"G. Kovács","doi":"10.1145/260558.260560","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/260558.260560","url":null,"abstract":"m A short analysis of software reuse and standardization possibilities for SMEs (versus large firms) is followed by the discussion of the practical application of the SALMS software repository in a small Hungarian software consulting firm, CIM-EXP Ltd. Standardization is used to produce reusable assets (design for reuse), always based on the same rules, to make application of the assets (design with reuse) easier. The first experiences are rather good in the positive effects of both the reuse and the standardization. euse of software elements is becoming more and more important in the lifecycle of software products. There are different views on the scope of reuse during the software lifecycle. One view is that reuse efforts should focus on code, as this work is more likely to have practical results [Frakes et al. 1990]. Another opinion is that all the results and resources used in a project, including human expertise, should be reused [Basili et al. 1988]. We note that all documents created during the perception-design-implementation-testing of a product, such as ideas, methodologies, requirement specifications, design results, code, executable code, test procedures and results, documentation, could be reused in later projects.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128555044","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":"Metrology for information technology","authors":"L. Carnahan, G. Carver, M. Gray, Michael D. Hogan, T. Hopp, J. Horlick, G. Lyon, E. Messina","doi":"10.1145/266231.266236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/266231.266236","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract : In May 1996, NIST management requested a white paper on metrology for information technology (IT). A task group was formed to develop this white paper with representatives from the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL), the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL), and Technology Services (TS). The task group members had a wide spectrum of experiences and perspectives on testing and measuring physical and IT quantities. The task group believed that its collective experience and knowledge were probably sufficient to investigate the underlying question of the nature of IT metrology. During the course of its work, the task group did not find any previous work addressing the overall subject of metrology for IT. The task group found it to be both exciting and challenging to possibly be first in what should be a continuing area of study. After some spirited deliberations, the task group was able to reach consensus on its white paper. Also, as a result of its deliberations, the task group decided that this white paper should suggest possible answers rather than assert definitive conclusions. In this spirit, the white paper suggests: a scope and a conceptual basis for IT metrology; a taxonomy for IT methods of testing; status of IT testing and measurement; opportunities to advance IT metrology; overall roles for NIST; and recapitulates the importance of IT metrology to the U.S. The task group is very appreciative of having had the opportunity to produce this white paper. The task group hopes that this white paper will provide food for thought for our intended audience: NIST management and technical staff and our colleagues elsewhere who are involved in various aspects of testing and measuring IT.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134243501","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":"World Wide Web distributed authoring and versioning (WebDAV): an introduction","authors":"E. J. Whitehead","doi":"10.1145/253452.253458","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253458","url":null,"abstract":"Ⅵ Today, the typical use of the World Wide Web is to browse information in a largely read-only manner. But this was not the original idea—as early as 1990, a prototype Web editor and browser was operational on the Next platform, demonstrating how Web content could be read and written. Unfortunately, most of the world never saw this editor/brows-er, but instead developed their view of the Web from the widely distributed text-based line mode browser. When NCSA Mosaic was developed, it improved the line mode browser by adding a graph-ical user interface and inline images, but had no provision for editing. As Mosaic 2.4 reached critical mass in 1993–4, \" publish/browse \" became the dominant model for the Web. But the original view of the Web as a readable and writable collaborative medium was not lost. n 1995, two browser/editor products were released: NaviPress by NaviSoft and Front-Page by Vermeer. These products began developing a market for authoring tools that allow a user to edit HyperText Markup Language (HTML) pages remotely [Raggett 1997], taking advantage of the ability to work at a distance over the In-ternet. In early 1996, NaviSoft and Ver-meer were purchased by America Online and Microsoft, respectively, presaging major corporate interest in Web distributed authoring technology. In 1995–96, Netscape released Navigator Gold, a Web browser/editor tool, able to publish pages to a remote Web server. 1996–7 also saw the release of Web-integrated word processors, with Microsoft Word 97, Lotus WordPro 97, and Corel WordPerfect 7, all with HTML editing and remote publishing capacities. In this setting, an ad hoc collection of people interested in remote authoring (now known as the WebDAV working group) met at the WWW4 conference in December 1995, and then at America Online in June 1996. Comprised of developers working on remote authoring tools, and people generally interested in extending the Web for authoring, this group identified key issues in writing these authoring tools, and also found a pressing need to develop standard extensions to the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [Fielding et al. 1997] for the following capabilities: —Metadata, to create, remove, and query information about Web pages, such as its author, creation date, etc., also to link pages of any media type to related pages. —Name space management, to copy and move Web pages, and to receive a listing of pages at a particular hierarchy level (like a directory listing in a file …","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"135 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124004352","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}