{"title":"Flexible automation of hardware design tasks using software process technology","authors":"B. Kramer, B. Dinler, W. Halang, A. Stoyenko","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315748","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315748","url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes a hybrid approach towards design management. It was applied in a case study linking automated software development and behavioral synthesis. The process-centered software development environment MARVEL is combined with the ALLIANCE design tool box to provide a flexible hardware design management environment. It automatically activates tools according to the design flow, checks access rights of designers, and maintains consistency of design data. Some lessons learned from the experiment are reported.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125426141","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}
G. Bruno, A. Castella, R. Agarwal, I. Pavesio, M. P. Pescarmona
{"title":"Introducing and practically using an object oriented design automation/prototyping tool","authors":"G. Bruno, A. Castella, R. Agarwal, I. Pavesio, M. P. Pescarmona","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315755","url":null,"abstract":"The development of concurrent applications, which consist of several parallel, often distributed, activities that communicate and synchronize with each other, presents challenging logical and technological issues. In common practice, the technological aspects, which are related to the definition of concurrent processes as well as to their interactions, often place constraints on the logical aspects. Consequently, the flexibility that could be attained during design is reduced and, furthermore, an actual implementation where both aspects are deeply intermixed is usually obtained. The aim of the research presented in this paper is twofold. On the one hand, an expressive and flexible language based on object-oriented high-level nets is proposed, so that designers can naturally represent concurrency and synchronization. On the other hand, a powerful support toolset is provided, so that design models based on nets can effectively be transformed into processes while minimizing and clearly separating the interactions with the underlying operating system and network facilities. A case study from an actual project is illustrated.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132195633","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 a software reuse tool","authors":"G. Hislop","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315752","url":null,"abstract":"Discusses an evaluation of SoftKin, a tool to support software reuse. The evaluation method was a series of case studies using commercial application software. This paper presents an overview of SoftKin, discusses the evaluation methodology and issues, and presents highlights of the evaluation results.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132824701","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}
S. Atkinson, P. Bailes, M. Chapman, M. Chilvers, I. Peake
{"title":"A re-engineering evaluation of Software Refinery: architecture, process and technology","authors":"S. Atkinson, P. Bailes, M. Chapman, M. Chilvers, I. Peake","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315751","url":null,"abstract":"The quality of software re-engineering tools depends on that of the generic environments used in their construction. Because re-engineering is extremely challenging, too much so for full automation, generic re-engineering environment design criteria emphasise linguistic expressiveness and interaction with persistent repositories for program representations. Existing quality re-engineering environments, such as the Software Refinery tool, go a long way to satisfying these criteria, but fail to meet open systems criteria. One remedial approach is to recreate some of the functionality of these environments by modifying public domain technology, but which runs the risk of limited interoperability and over-investment in development.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121781717","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 selection of methods and tools for the procurement of safety critical software","authors":"Y. Mayadoux","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315746","url":null,"abstract":"The production of a safety critical software can be improved by the relevant use of methods and tools; as shown by experience with the DARTS project. The article makes recommendations on what to look for in the selection of appropriate methods and tools. The paper gives an overview of the characteristics of safety critical software; referring to existing recommendations. The DARTS project is then presented. Finally, recommendations on the selection of methods and tools for the production of safety critical software are made.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114395512","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":"Why evaluating CASE environments is different from evaluating CASE tools","authors":"A. Brown","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315764","url":null,"abstract":"Many people believe that evaluating and selecting CASE environments is little more than evaluating and selecting each of the constituent CASE tools. We argue that evaluation of CASE environments requires the consideration of a range of different factors that are fundamental to any CASE environment assessment process. We describe our rationale for this position, highlight some issues that must be considered when evaluating CASE environments, and consider how these issues affect the criteria and process of evaluating and selecting CASE environments. In particular we discuss the possibility of developing a CASE environment evaluation process based on an analysis of the quality attributes of a CASE environment.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123356982","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 Global Control Environment tool: a new software system prototyping approach","authors":"C. Munk, A. Vachoux, D. Mlynek","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315758","url":null,"abstract":"Presents a novel approach to the prototyping of complex software systems. The approach has been implemented as a software development environment called the Global Control Environment (GCE) tool. It provides mechanisms facilitating the definition of a user interface and the analysis of possible interactions between internal applications. A high-level, interpreted language is used to allow the specification of user interfaces using scripts. In addition to widget object descriptions, this language allows the specification of all control aspects that manage the interaction between the end-user and internal processes. The paper indicates the role of the GCE tool in a prototyping environment.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121943156","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":"Using the spiral model to assess, select and integrate software development tools","authors":"F. Cioch, J. Brabbs, S. Kanter","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315763","url":null,"abstract":"Rather than having software tool assessment and selection be performed separately from the software development process, Boehm's (1988) spiral model of software development can be used to provide a framework within which tool assessment and selection can be systematically integrated into the software development process. The result is an incremental decision making/integration process which results in conservative (minimal, best-for-now) decisions which come under review each cycle through the spiral. This paper first describes the decision making/integration process. It then shows how the decision making/integration process has been used in the VETRONICS Simulation Facility project. The first three cycles through the spiral are described for the selection of a CASE tool, a prototyping tool, and an interprocess communication (IPC) tool.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122162500","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":"MONSET-a prototype software development estimating tool","authors":"B. Srinivasan, G. Martin","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315761","url":null,"abstract":"The development of large-scale computer software has traditionally been a difficult cost estimation problem. Software has been developed for more than thirty years and it is reasonable to expect that the experience gained in this time, would make software development effort predictions more reliable. One way by which an organisation can benefit from past projects is to measure, track and control each project and use the collected results to assist future project estimation. This paper describes a hybrid model for software effort prediction and its validation against available data on some large software projects. A prototype software development estimation system (MONSET-Monash Software Estimating Tool) based on the proposed model is described. The system aims to provide guidance for project managers during the software development process.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127307543","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 the effectiveness of Process Weaver as a process management tool: a case study","authors":"W.H. Ett, S. Becker","doi":"10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AQSDT.1994.315750","url":null,"abstract":"The STARS program has conducted applied research and field testing of process technology to support software developers follow a defined process while unobtrusively collecting measurements to support process improvement activities. The Loral STARS team performed an evaluation of Process Weaver as a tool to support the development and delivery of process support applications-applications that support software developers follow a defined process. This paper describes Process Weaver and compares its capabilities to our previous process support system, the Cleanroom Engineering Process Assistant. It also discusses requirements for tools and techniques required to support the definition, development and delivery of applications to guide software developers through a defined process.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":349987,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Assessments of Quality Software Development Tools","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129883197","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}