FuBultanSu04

1. Xiang Fu & Tevfic Bultan & Jianwen Su
2. Model Checking XML Manipulating Software
3. Proc ISSTA 2004 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V29n4(Jun 2004)pp252-262
4. =DEMO SPIN MODEL CHECKER Promela XPath XML WSAT Web services
5. Gives algorithms for translating XML data and XPath expressions into Promela.

MunozDowekCarreno04

1. Cesar A Munoz & Gilles Dowek & Victor Carreno
2. Modeling and Verification of an Air Traffic Concept of Operations
3. Proc ISSTA 2004 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V29n4(Jun 2004)pp175-182
4. =EXPERIENCE THEOREM PROVING PVS CONCEPT of OPERATIONS V&V REQUIREMENTS ATC Airport SATS-HVO
5. Concept_of_operations::="a collection of rules and procedures".
6. Uncovered 10 issues in proposed concept of operations that where accepted into a revised form.
7. The model also had to be revized...
8. Model checking could not handle the 213 boolean variables needed,
9. PVS allowed a more abstract expression of the concepts and the verification that it permitted only safe states.
10. Given no more than 4 planes at a time, depth first exploration discovered no more than 2811 reachable states. The algorithm (depth first) was written and proved using PVS. [ http:researcch.nianet.org/~munoz/Besc ]

1. Thomas J Ostrand & Elaine J Weyuker & Robert M Bell
2. Where the bugs are
3. Proc ISSTA 2004 & ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes V29n4(Jun 2004)pp86-96
4. =EMPIRICAL SQA DEFECTS
5. Presents a complex way to predict files that will need changing.
6. Big files have more bugs.
7. File type is important. Makefiles change a lot.
8. Previous fixes followed by more.

Huth04

1. Michael Huth
2. Mathematics for the Exploration of Requirements
3. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin V36n2(Jun 2004)pp34-39
4. =EXAMPLE Uncertain Mathematical Specifications Alloy TOOL =CASESTUDY .NET cache
5. =ADVERT 2nd edition [HuthRyan00] [ http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~huth/lics/ ]
6. Checking Specifications for inconsistency and to see if they meet goals and objectives.
7. Shows that tools & languages for requirements drive discussions rather than solve problems. Some tools will generate spurious diagnostics.

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 Piccolo
5. Goal: an extensible structured graphics toolkit. Have many shapes and can add new ones easily.
6. Jazz::= See http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/jazz/.
7. Piccolo::= See http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/piccolo/.
8. polylithic::design_styles="mainly using run-time composition to extend...". Many small classes, Easier to create but harder to use,
9. monolithic::design_styles="mainly using compile-time inheritance to extend...". Few large classes. Harder to create but easier to use.
   
10. (dick) |- Polylithic designs seem to use the GoF patterns.
    
11. (dick) |- perhaps use composition for explore the domain and then reify functionality into a stable product.