DOCSLIB.ORG

Practice to Perfect: the Quality First Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Practice to Perfect: the Quality First Model Editor: Bertrand Meyer, EiffelSoft, 270 Storke Rd., Ste. 7, Goleta, CA 93117; voice (805) 685-6869; [email protected] It’s the spiral model. Barry Boehm’s great contribution (“A Spiral Model of Practice Software Development and Enhance- ment,” Computer, May 1988) was to emphasize the need to handle risk in soft- Object Technology ware project management. But Quality To Perfect: First does not use spiral’s idea of repeated analysis-design-implementation cycles. It builds the software, cluster by cluster, using a seamless, reversible process, The Quality as described by Kim Walden in this column (“Reversibility in Software Engineering,” Sept. 1996). First Model It’s just.... Probably not. Few basic ideas are completely new in software; to a certain extent, all had been said in 1974 Bertrand Meyer, EiffelSoft by Edsger Dijkstra, Tony Hoare, Knuth, Harlan Mills, Niklaus Wirth, and a few Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint, I’ve always worked that way. If that’s others. What counts is how you put the und das mit Recht Mephistopheles really true, congratulations. But I’d like to basic ideas together: what you do, and – Goethe’s Faust, part I (for the trans- see it before I believe it, because some as- also what you don’t do. lation, read on) pects of this process go directly against con- ventional ideas of software development. It’s a personal software process and will not work for large developments. Large aving recently completed a mul- It’s just literate programming. Donald developments are aggregates of personal tiyear writing project, I now Knuth’s literate programming is a great processes, as described by Watts have time to program again. idea. But it’s not Quality First. As I Not just directing development understand it, literate programming is H or looking at specific elements or top-down (it starts from a problem state- Quality First helping fix bugs or even writing library ment), while Quality First is bottom-up builds software, classes (these I never stopped doing), but (it starts with perfecting a small system cluster by cluster, using a sizable development. Such in-depth then adds functionality). Quality First is a seamless reversible involvement is not only pleasurable, it is fundamentally tied to object technology process. indispensable if your job involves con- and design by contract. sulting, writing, lecturing, teaching, man- aging, documenting, or selling (or all of It’s just Cleanroom development. Like Humphrey. If you can’t get the personal the above). In particular, if you sell devel- Quality First, Cleanroom emphasizes for- process right, you won’t get the large- opment tools you should use them, too— mal reasoning. Unlike Quality First, it scale processes right. Besides (building and not just for doing demos, teaching shuns unit testing and, in general, the use on an observation I first heard not very classes, or writing manuals. of computers early in the process. Quality long ago from Jean Ichbiah, the designer What the product is does not matter for First constantly relies on computer tools of Ada, who recently built another great this discussion. But I have started to docu- and encourages continuous testing. product with a very small team), it’s ment my own development process because amazing what one person or a tiny I think it may be interesting for others. It’s just rapid prototyping. Absolutely group can do these days with object I call this process the Quality First not. In many respects it’s the opposite. technology, modern tools, top-charged model. This is not a slogan; it describes a Rapid prototyping is about building “personal” computers, the Internet, and central property of the model. It follows something to try a few ideas, then throw- the Web. There remains a need for the from comments made by consultant ing it away to start the real development. massive, warfare types of projects so Roger Osmond, which I will try to sum- With Quality First, you work on the real prominent in the traditional software marize here. thing, right from the start. engineering textbooks—projects which, by the way, probably need the tech- OBJECTIONS It’s incremental development. Yes, so niques described here more than any- First let me try to refute in advance what? All development is incremental. thing else—but more and more some objections you might put forward What matters is how you go from one successful products are, at least initially, as you read about Quality First: increment to the next. the product of guerrilla programming. 102 Computer . resume like that, I would hire the guy on the spot; Mr. Nice Guy and Ms. Kind Gal need not apply. 100 OSMOND PRINCIPLE Here I will paraphrase the comments Late Roger Osmond made at TOOLS USA debugging (the curves are mine but the ideas—which I hope I am not distorting too much—are definitely his). Software quality includes two parts: functionality (how much the software does) and everything else (cor- Other qualities (percentage) 0 rectness and robustness, efficiency, porta- Functionality bility, extensibility, reusability). Too often, the development scheme is as depicted in Figure 1. You try to Figure 1. The most common development scheme addresses functionality and quality simultane- progress toward the goal—enough func- ously. tionality, good quality—by working on everything at once. In the meantime, the product is not only less-than-functional It’s the cluster model. Yes, but it’s more. tion and verification) you will find all but also less-than-good. You hope, of The cluster model (Object Success: A bugs, so why spend time on things like course, that given enough time you’ll fix Manager’s Guide to Object Technology, design by contract? Some of the online both the functionality and the quality. Prentice Hall, 1995) describes the Usenet discussions following the column This is what I will call the slopy model process of object-oriented software here on the Ariane-5 crash (available at (named for the slow upward slope). development, based on partitioning the http://www.eiffel. com) clearly evidenced As Osmond pointed out, the slopy system into a number of subsystems and that attitude. model is very wrong. In fact, it deserves libraries, the clusters, and applying con- It does not have to be either-or! To say current engineering on the various clus- that careful, formal design removes the ters. Quality First complements the need for testing is just as absurd as to To say that careful, cluster model by telling us how we think that with enough V&V you can formal design removes should be developing the clusters. make up for imperfect software technol- the need for testing ogy. Especially in mission-critical systems is just as absurd A PRIORI AND A POSTERIORI (and how many developments these days as to think that It never ceases to amaze me, when I aren’t?) you need both. You want the with enough V&V you look at the literature and at discussions best a priori efforts, managerial (simula- can make up for imperfect in places like Computer and IEEE tion, careful design) and technological software technology. Software, not to mention Usenet, how (the most sophisticated method, tools, much we as a community reason in hardware, languages). And you need the “either-or” terms when it comes to soft- a posteriori checks: an independent QA a second ‘p.’ Its flaw becomes very clear ware quality techniques. team, extensive testing, and V&V. in the face of one of the unspoken con- For some, the key is in a priori tech- Your motto should be: Build it so you straints on our industry: the “Can we niques: Just use formal methods, and can trust it. Then don’t trust it. ship now?” phenomenon. As Philippe everything will be right. Boris Beizer does Reliability engineering involves redun- Kahn says, “shipping is a feature.” With a hatchet job on some extreme forms of dancy and distrustfulness. Our obvious the slopy model, this question translates this idea—the absurd view that if you are patron saint here is the sulfurous into “Does it do enough?” and “Is it just careful enough you don’t need unit Mephistopheles (here, finally, is the good enough?” testing (“Cleanroom Process Model: A translation): What Osmond advocates—and what Critical Examination,” IEEE Software, the industry needs—is what I will call Mar. 1997, pp. 14-16). I am the spirit that always says no, the Quality First model: Quality remains At the other end of the spectrum you and rightly so. constant. You always strive to get every- find many developers who don’t believe thing right from the start and fix it at all in formal or even semiformal tech- That’s us! (Do get the full quotation, immediately if it is not. The only thing niques, for whatever reason. In much of with Zerstörung—destruction, and all that changes is functionality. Quality current practice, the hope is simply that such great stuff.) This is what I call a with enough testing and V&V (valida- healthy attitude for a QA person. With a Continued on page 105 May 1997 103 . Object Technology Continued from page 103 First produces the flat line (or at least the 100 perhaps more realistic wavy line) in Figure 2. In this model you never skimp on quality. If the existing functionality does not work perfectly yet, you don’t move on to the next function; you make things right. Why is Quality First so much better? First, it turns the “Can we ship now?” question into “Does it do enough to Other qualities (percentage) 0 impress the marketplace?” Quality— Functionality other than functionality—is not a party to the decision.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Essence Initiative
    The Essence Initiative Ivar Jacobson Agenda Specific Problems A Case for Action - Defining a solid theoretical base - Finding a kernel of widely agreed elements Using the Kernel Final Words Being in the software development business Everyone of us knows how to develop our software, but as a community we have no widely accepted common ground A CASE FOR ACTION STATEMENT • Software engineering is gravely hampered today by immature practices. Specific problems include: – The prevalence of fads more typical of fashion industry than of an engineering discipline. – The lack of a sound, widely accepted theoretical basis. – The huge number of methods and method variants, with differences little understood and artificially magnified. – The lack of credible experimental evaluation and validation. – The split between industry practice and academic research. Agenda Specific Problems A Case for Action - Defining a solid theoretical base - Finding a kernel of widely agreed elements Using the Kernel Final Words The SEMAT initiative Software Engineering Method and Theory www.semat.org Founded by the Troika in September 2009: Ivar Jacobson – Bertrand Meyer – Richard Soley What are we going to do about it? The Grand Vision We support a process to refound software engineering based on a solid theory, proven principles and best practices The Next Steps Defining A Kernel of a solid widely agreed theoretical basis elements There are probably more than 100,000 methods Desired solution: Method Architectureincl. for instance SADT, Booch, OMT, RUP, CMMI, XP, Scrum, Lean, Kanban There are around 250 The Kernel includes identified practices incl such elements as for instance use cases, Requirement, use stories, features, Software system, components, Work, Team, Way-of- working, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Specification Methods What Are Formal Methods? Objectives Of
    ICS 221 Winter 2001 Formal Specification Methods What Are Formal Methods? ! Use of formal notations … Formal Specification Methods ! first-order logic, state machines, etc. ! … in software system descriptions … ! system models, constraints, specifications, designs, etc. David S. Rosenblum ! … for a broad range of effects … ICS 221 ! correctness, reliability, safety, security, etc. Winter 2001 ! … and varying levels of use ! guidance, documentation, rigor, mechanisms Formal method = specification language + formal reasoning Objectives of Formal Methods Why Use Formal Methods? ! Verification ! Formal methods have the potential to ! “Are we building the system right?” improve both software quality and development productivity ! Formal consistency between specificand (the thing being specified) and specification ! Circumvent problems in traditional practices ! Promote insight and understanding ! Validation ! Enhance early error detection ! “Are we building the right system?” ! Develop safe, reliable, secure software-intensive ! Testing for satisfaction of ultimate customer intent systems ! Documentation ! Facilitate verifiability of implementation ! Enable powerful analyses ! Communication among stakeholders ! simulation, animation, proof, execution, transformation ! Gain competitive advantage Why Choose Not to Use Desirable Properties of Formal Formal Methods? Specifications ! Emerging technology with unclear payoff ! Unambiguous ! Lack of experience and evidence of success ! Exactly one specificand (set) satisfies it ! Lack of automated
    [Show full text]
  • Design by Contract: the Lessons of Ariane
    . Editor: Bertrand Meyer, EiffelSoft, 270 Storke Rd., Ste. 7, Goleta, CA 93117; voice (805) 685-6869; [email protected] several hours (at least in earlier versions of Ariane), it was better to let the computa- tion proceed than to stop it and then have Design by to restart it if liftoff was delayed. So the SRI computation continues for 50 seconds after the start of flight mode—well into the flight period. After takeoff, of course, this com- Contract: putation is useless. In the Ariane 5 flight, Object Technology however, it caused an exception, which was not caught and—boom. The exception was due to a floating- point error during a conversion from a 64- The Lessons bit floating-point value, representing the flight’s “horizontal bias,” to a 16-bit signed integer: In other words, the value that was converted was greater than what of Ariane can be represented as a 16-bit signed inte- ger. There was no explicit exception han- dler to catch the exception, so it followed the usual fate of uncaught exceptions and crashed the entire software, hence the onboard computers, hence the mission. This is the kind of trivial error that we Jean-Marc Jézéquel, IRISA/CNRS are all familiar with (raise your hand if you Bertrand Meyer, EiffelSoft have never done anything of this sort), although fortunately the consequences are usually less expensive. How in the world everal contributions to this made up of respected experts from major department have emphasized the European countries, which produced a How in the world could importance of design by contract report in hardly more than a month.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Sense of Agile Methods Bertrand Meyer Politecnico Di
    Making sense of agile methods Bertrand Meyer Politecnico di Milano and Innopolis University Some ten years ago, I realized that I had been missing something big in software engineering. I had heard about Extreme Programming early thanks to a talk by Pete McBreen at a summer school in 1999 and another by Kent Beck himself at TOOLS USA in 2000. But I had not paid much attention to Scrum and, when I took a look, noticed two striking discrepancies in the state of agile methods. The first discrepancy was between university software engineering courses, which back then (things have changed) often did not cover agility, and the buzz in industry, which was only about agility. As I started going through the agile literature, the second discrepancy emerged: an amazing combination of the best and the worst ideas, plus much in-between. In many cases, faced with a new methodological approach, one can quickly deploy what in avionics is called Identification Friend or Foe: will it help or hurt? With agile, IFF fails. It did not help that the tone of most published discussions on agile methods (with a few exceptions, notably [1]) was adulatory. Sharing your passion for a novel approach is commendable, but not a reason to throw away your analytical skills. A precedent comes to mind: people including me who championed object-oriented programming a decade or so earlier may at times have let their enthusiasm show, but we did not fail to discuss cons along with pros. The natural reaction was to apply a rule that often helps: when curious, teach a class; when bewildered, write a book.
    [Show full text]
  • Object-Oriented Software Construction
    Quotes from∗ Object-Oriented Software Construction Bertrand Meyer Prentice-Hall, 1988 Preface, p. xiv We study the object-oriented approach as a set of principles, methods and tools which can be instrumental in building \production" software of higher quality than is the norm today. Object-oriented design is, in its simplest form, based on a seemingly elementary idea. Computing systems perform certain actions on certain objects; to obtain flexible and reusable systems, it is better to base the structure of software on the objects than on the actions. Once you have said this, you have not really provided a definition, but rather posed a set of problems: What precisely is an object? How do you find and describe the objects? How should programs manipulate objects? What are the possible relations between objects? How does one explore the commonalities that may exist between various kinds of objects? How do these ideas relate to classical software engineering concerns such as correct- ness, ease of use, efficiency? Answers to these issues rely on an impressive array of techniques for efficiently producing reusable, extendible and reliable software: inheritance, both in its linear (single) and multiple forms; dynamic binding and poly- morphism; a new view of types and type checking; genericity; information hiding; use of assertions; programming by contract; safe exception handling. Efficient implementation techniques have been developed to allow practical application of these ideas. [T]he book relies on the object-oriented language Eiffel. 4.1 Process and Data (p. 41) A software system is a set of mechanisms for performing certain actions on certain data.
    [Show full text]
  • Title of Presentation
    Essence Kernel Kristian Sandahl Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 2 Software Engineering Method And Theory • A common ground for software engineering • Moving away from SE methods “fashion” industry. • Founded in 2009 by: – Ivar Jacobson – Bertrand Meyer – Richard Soley • OMG Standard under the name Essence • The SEMAT Kernel – manifestation of the common ground Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 3 The Kernel • comprises the central elements for all SE methods; • provides a common language for comparing, applying, and improving methods; • supports progress monitoring; • works in small- and large-scale projects; • works for well documented and less documented projects; • comes with a language and tool for developing practices. • Uptake in China, Russia, South Africa, Japan, Silicon Valley, Florida, Mexico, Germany Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 4 What’s in it for us? • It is highly probable that this will be used much more in the future. • By focusing on the Essentials, the project groups have more freedom and responsibility. • Our students will not become “methodists”. • Taught in TDDE46 Software quality. Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 5 Areas of concern Use and exploitation of the system Specification and development The team and approach of work Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 6 What is an ALPHA? • Alpha is an acronym for an Abstract-Level Progress Health Attribute. • A critical indicator of things that are most important to monitor and progress. Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 7 The Kernel ALPHAs Source of picture: Ivar Jacobson International Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 8 Brief explanation Source of picture: Ivar Jacobson International Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 9 The structure of an ALPHA Source of picture: Ivar Jacobson International Essence/Kristian Sandahl 2021-01-18 10 Requirements– one of the alphas What the software system must do to address the opportunity and satisfy the stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Devops in Academia and Industry: Reflections and Vision
    Teaching DevOps in academia and industry: reflections and vision Evgeny Bobrov1, Antonio Bucchiarone3, Alfredo Capozucca2 Nicolas Guelfi2, Manuel Mazzara1, Sergey Masyagin1 1 Innopolis University, Russian Federation 2 University of Luxembourg 3 Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy Abstract. This paper describes our experience of delivery educational programs in academia and in industry on DevOps, compare the two ap- proaches and sum-up the lessons learnt. We also propose a vision to implement a shift in the Software Engineering Higher Education curric- ula. 1 Introduction DevOps is a natural evolution of the Agile approaches [1,2] from the software itself to the overall infrastructure and operations. This evolution was made pos- sible by the spread of cloud-based technologies and the everything-as-a-service approaches. Adopting DevOps is however more complex than adopting Agile [3] since changes at organisation level are required. Furthermore, a complete new skill set has to be developed in the teams [4]. The educational process is therefore of major importance for students, developers and managers. DevOps way of working has introduced a set of software engineering activities and corresponding supporting tools that has disrupted the way individual devel- opers and teams produce software. This has led both the world of research and industry to review software engineering life-cycle and all the supporting tech- niques to develop software in continuous operation and evolution. If we want to enclose DevOps in one word, it is continuous. Modelling, integration, testing, and delivery are significant part of DevOps life-cycle that, respect to enterprise or monolithic applications developed some years ago, must be revised contin- uously to permit the continuous evolution of the software and especially an easy adaptability at context changes and new requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Object- Oriented Software Composition
    Oscar Nierstrasz and Dennis Tsichritzis, Object-Oriented Software Composition, Prentice Hall, 1995. Reproduced with the permission of the Publisher, Prentice Hall (a Pearson Education company). This work is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced other than when downloaded and viewed on a single Central Processor Unit (CPU) for private use only. It is not otherwise to be reproduced or transmitted or made available on a network without prior written permission of Prentice Hall. All other rights reserved. Object- Oriented Software Composition EDITED BY Oscar Nierstrasz UNIVERSITY OF BERNE AND Dennis Tsichritzis UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA First published 1995 by Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd Campus 400, Maylands Avenue Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire, HP2 7EZ A division of Simon & Schuster International Group © Prentice Hall 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission, in writing, from the publisher. For permission within the United States of America contact Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Printed and bound in Great Britain by T.J. Press (Padstow) Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Object-oriented software composition / edited by Oscar Nierstrasz and Dennis Tsichritzis. p. cm.—(The Object-oriented series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-13-220674-9 1. Object-oriented
    [Show full text]
  • Bertrand Meyer Richard Soley What Are We Going to Do About It?
    What we should teach you about software at school The Essence Ivar Jacobson [email protected] Agenda • The State of the Industry • Specific Problems • A Case for Action – Standing on a Solid Theory – Including a Kernel of Widely-Agreed Elements • Using the Kernel • Extending the Kernel • What’s in it For You? Final Words 2 Are we seen as a trustworthy industry? • How a Software Company would design a Treeswing Are we seen as a trustworthy industry? Source: Top 10 Software Failures Of 2011 By Phil Codd Are we seen as a trustworthy industry? Software engineering is gravely hampered today by immature practices. Agenda • The State of the Industry • Specific Problems • A Call for Action – Standing on a Solid Theory – Including a Kernel of Widely-Agreed Elements • Using the Kernel • Extending the Kernel • What’s in it For You? Final Words 6 The prevalence of fads typical of fashion industry Software Development seems to be driven by fashions and fads – Twenty years ago it was all about OO – Twelve years ago it was about components, UML, Unified Process (RUP) – Ten years ago it was about CMMI and Spice – Four years ago it was about XP – Yesterday it was about Scrum – Now it is about Lean and Kanban All good, but none has all you need! The lack of a sound, widely accepted theoretical basis. Everyone of us knows how to develop our software, but as a community we have no widely accepted common ground The huge number of methods… • The problem is not the huge number but – We cannot compare them so we cannot learn from them – We cannot select the best practices from them – Not even within a large company do we know which methods we have.
    [Show full text]
  • Slide Printout
    SLIDE PRINTOUT This document includes slides from Bertrand Meyer’s STAF 2014 keynote “Agile! The Good, the Hype and the Ugly” (after eponymous book, Springer, 2014; see registration desk for flyer with special discount for STAF attendees) The document is meant solely for the personal use of STAF 2014 participants Please note that some of the material (e.g. Agile Manifesto) may be others’ copyright. Slides with known distribution restrictions have been removed © Bertrand Meyer, 2014 1 Agile manifesto . 2 Agile manifesto . General observations For every complex Your work, Sir, is both new and problem there is an good, but what's new is not good and answer that is clear, what's good is not new simple, and wrong Samuel Johnson* H.L. Mencken ANDROMAQUE: I do not understand abstractions. CASSANDRA: As you like. Let us resort to metaphors. Jean Giraudoux, The Trojan WarWill Not Happen * (probably apocryphal) 3 Agile methods XP Kent Beck Lean Mary Poppendieck Crystal Alistair Cockburn Scrum Schwaber & Sutherland Sociological view “The revolt of the cubicles” [Dilbert’s and Dilbert’s boss’s pictures removed] 4 Negotiated scope contract XP Source: Beck 2005 “Write contracts for software development that fix time, costs, and quality but call for an ongoing negotiation of the precise scope of the system. Reduce risk by signing a sequence of short contracts instead of one long one.” “You can move in the direction of negotiated scope. Big, long contracts can be split in half or thirds, with the optional part to be exercised only if both parties agree. Contracts with high costs for change requests can be written with less scope fixed up front and lower costs for changes” Rhetorical devices Proof by anecdote Slander by association Intimidation All-or-nothing Unverifiable claims 5 Proof by anecdote Source: Mike Cohn, Succeeding with Agile * There is a grand myth about requirements — if you write them down, users will get exactly what they want.
    [Show full text]
  • Seamless Object-Oriented Requirements Alexandr Naumchev
    Seamless Object-Oriented Requirements Alexandr Naumchev To cite this version: Alexandr Naumchev. Seamless Object-Oriented Requirements. Software Engineering [cs.SE]. Univer- sité Paul Sabatier - Toulouse III, 2019. English. NNT : 2019TOU30132. tel-02872242 HAL Id: tel-02872242 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02872242 Submitted on 17 Jun 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THÈSETHÈSE En vue de l’obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE Délivré par : l’Université Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier (UT3 Paul Sabatier) Présentée et soutenue le 12 juillet 2019 par : Alexandr Naumchev Exigences orientées objets dans un cycle de vie continu Seamless Object-Oriented Requirements JURY M. YAMINE AIT-AMEUR Président du Jury MME SUSANNE GRAF Examinatrice MME CATHERINE DUBOIS Rapporteure MME ELISABETTA DI NITTO Rapporteure M. JEAN-MICHEL BRUEL Directeur de thèse M. BERTRAND MEYER Co-directeur de thèse École doctorale et spécialité : EDMITT - Ecole Doctorale Mathématiques, Informatique et Télécommunications de Toulouse Unité de Recherche : IRIT: Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse Directeur(s) de Thèse : M. Jean-Michel Bruel et M. Bertrand Meyer Rapporteurs : Mme Catherine Dubois et Mme Elisabetta Di Nitto ii To Mary Acknowledgement Many people were helping me in different ways while I was working on the thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Body of Knowledge for Model-Based Software Engineering
    Towards a Body of Knowledge for Model-Based Software Engineering Federico Ciccozzi, Michalis Famelis, Gerti Kappel, Leen Lambers, Sébastien Mosser, Richard Paige, Alfonso Pierantonio, Arend Rensink, Rick Salay, Gabi Taentzer, et al. To cite this version: Federico Ciccozzi, Michalis Famelis, Gerti Kappel, Leen Lambers, Sébastien Mosser, et al.. Towards a Body of Knowledge for Model-Based Software Engineering. MODELS ’18 ACM/IEEE 21st Inter- national Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Oct 2018, Copenhague, Denmark. hal-01886114 HAL Id: hal-01886114 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01886114 Submitted on 2 Oct 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Towards a Body of Knowledge for Model-Based Software Engineering Federico Ciccozzi Michalis Famelis Gerti Kappel Mälardalen University Université de Montréal CDP, TU Wien Västerås, Sweden Montreal, Canada Vienna, Austria [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Leen Lambers Sebastien Mosser Richard F. Paige Hasso-Plattner-Institut
    [Show full text]