From tracz@predator.endicott.ibm.com Wed Jun 14 07:19 PDT 1995 Return-Path: Received: from inetgw.fsc.ibm.com (inetgw.lfs.loral.com) by silicon.csci.csusb.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10058; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 07:19:03 +0800 Received: by inetgw.fsc.ibm.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA27051; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:52:35 -0400 Received: from predator.endicott.ibm.com(9.130.144.17) by inetgw.fsc.ibm.com via smap (V1.3) id sma033698; Wed Jun 14 09:51:52 1995 Received: by predator.endicott.ibm.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA13991; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:51:05 -0400 From: "Will Tracz" Message-Id: <9506140951.ZM12709@predator.endicott.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:51:05 -0400 Reply-To: tracz@lfs.loral.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.0.1 23feb94) To: editors_SIGSOFT@acm.org Subject: SEN V20 N.3 electronic version Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 48050 Status: R ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes Volume 20, Number 3 July 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------ Letter from the Chair, Lori Clarke 1* Letter from the Editor, Will Tracz 1* Surfing the Net for Software Engineering Notes, Chuck Howell 2* Risks to the Public, Peter G. Neumann and contributors 7 Experimental Design and Analysis in SW Eng. Part 4: Choosing an Experimental Design, Shari Lawrence Pfleeger 13 ICSE-17 WOW, WOW Editorial Staff 16 On ICSE's "Most Influential" Papers, David Lorge Parnas 29 Why Should You Use a Personal Software Process Watts S. Humphrey 33 The Complexity Gap, L.B.S Raccoon 37 Beyond Objects: A Response, Bill Appelbe and Gregory Abowd 45 DSSA Pedagogical Example, Will Tracz 49 Daghstul Architecture Workshop Summary, D. Garlan, W. Tichy, and Frances Paulisch 63 ICSE-18 Architecture Workshop Summary, David Garlan 84 Reuse-Oriented Requirements Engineering in NATURE Neil A.M. Maiden 90 Practical Verification for Requirements Model of Hateley/Pirbhai Tanehiro Tatsuta 94 Calendar of Events, Malcolm Slovin 98* * = included in this softcopy LETTER FROM THE CHAIR Lori Clarke Happy Birthday to SIGSOFT! It was twenty years ago that the Special Interest Committee on Software Engineering (SICSOFT) was approved by ACM. Tony Wasserman and Stockton Gaines worked together to gain ACM approval for a new special interest area for this emerging field. Two years later "committee" status was upgraded to "group" status and the initial few hundred members had grown to over four thousand. Tony Wasserman was elected the first chair of SIGSOFT and served from July 1977 until 1979. When Tony stepped down in 1979, SIGSOFT had over six thousand members and was the third largest ACM SIG. It seems most fitting that the primary founder and first chair of SIGSOFT was the first recipient of the SIGSOFT Service Award for Lifetime Contri- butions to the Software Engineering Community. In addition to his service to SIGSOFT, Tony also served as Editor-in-Chief of ACM Surveys and on the board of the Computing Research Association. Tony has also had an active and successful career as a professor, author, and entrepreneur. The award was presented at ICSE 17 in Seattle, where Tony was given a plaque and a $1000 check. SIGSOFT plans to present this award yearly at ICSE. Dick Taylor, past chair of SIGSOFT, has agreed to chair the selection committee. Nominees should have made long-lasting and substantial contributions to the software engineering community. It is not necessary that they have contributed to SIGSOFT directly, however. Anyone wishing to make a nomination should contact Dick (taylor@ics.uci.edu). Congratulations also to Dewayne Perry, Ross Jeffery, and David Notkin, as well as the other members of the ICSE17 organizing committee. ICSE17 was a tremendous success. Attendance was up and participants seemed pleased with the wide range of presentations, tutorials, tool demonstra- tions and workshops. Plans for ICSE 18 in Berlin, March 25-30 1996, and for ICSE 19 in Boston, April 27-May 3, 1997, are well underway. In addition to trying to maintain a high-quality research track, ICSE is committed to providing tutorials, invited presentations and panels, and tools fair activi- ties that should benefit practitioners as well as researchers. ICSE is one of the few conferences that actively tries to bring practitioners and researchers together to foster better communication and interactions. LETTER FROM THE EDITOR Will Tracz Wow! That's what I hope you will be saying after you have looked over this issue of SEN - Parnas, Humphrey, Software Architectures, ICSE - WOW! I sure had fun putting together this issue (though I am counting down the days until my new desktop publishing system arrives:-). Next issue will have a new look, as does this one. You see, having attended the ACM SIG newsletter editors meeting this Spring in Nashville, I came away with a new appreciation for country music and "News"letter philosophy. So, some of you will be pleased to see more "News" in this newsletter. (We are blessed with an abundance of workshop and conference reports, plus a research summary.) That's the good news; the bad news is the paper backlog (see Table 1) has gotten longer. I apologize to the authors who thought their articles were ready to pop off the front of the queue (especially to those who cut their papers down in size and reformatted them). I understand your frustration and disappointment and, again, I offer the interested reader, pre-prints of any paper they think looks of interest. On to other news, I am pleased to announce that SEN has a volunteer web- master. Bob Munck from Loral (formerly Unisys) will be helping organize an HTML version of the original material in each SEN. Look for SEN on :http//www.acm.org/sig`hp/SIGSOFT.html One word of warning, The SIGSOFT pages are in transition, so, please don't be too critical about their appearance at the moment. Before closing, let me make one more emotional appeal. Have you ever stopped to think, when you are holding an issue of the SEN in your key- board calloused hands, that there are a couple thousand other people people out there doing the same thing? (OK - so maybe they aren't all_reading it at the same_time, but you get the picture! :-) The point I am trying to make is, "Who are you/we? What are you/we?" The reason I ask is that I happen to think software architectures are the latest and greatest thing to come down the road. Consequently, I have given them plenty of airtime- at the expense of other, more established technologies. In my opinion, they are "news," but, the error in my ways can easily be corrected if enough of you speak up to convince me otherwise. Let me know. In closing, let me say I am still looking for volunteers to act as assistant production editors. This job requires some proficiency with Framemaker. I also have a stack of 25 CS books on my desk looking for reviewers. Thanks. SEN Backlog 4 June 1995 1. Achieving and Proving Success with Software Reuse: A Tutorial, Poulin 2. A Reengineering Framework for Small Scale Software T. Philip and R.Ramsundar 3. SW Reliability Apportionment using the Analytic Hierarchy Process K. Aggarwal and Y.Singh 4. A GUI for a Manager of Lightweight Processes E. A. Billar and A.E. Riedmiller 5. Inheritance as Sublation and Its Semantics D. Xu and G. Zheng 6. Educating SW Managers - Dr. of Comp. Information Systems (DCIS) Shoemaker and V.Jovanicec 7. A Proposed Methodology for Knowledge Based Systems Development M. McManus and R.Verbruggen 8. The Fountain Model and its Impact on Project Schedule. Pillai 9. The Development of JR-DSSG: A Case Study of Software Reuse Manwu, et al 10. Design Reuse: Chemical Engineering vs. Software Engineering Kogut 11. Toward Quality Oriented IS Design Proc.Using Two Levelled Design Kokol 12. Working Results on Software Re-Engineering J.C. Sampaio do Predo Leite 13. A Strategy for Mapping from Function-Oriented SW.Models to OO SW Models rge and B.D.4Carter 14. The Chaos Strategy L.B.S. Raccoon 15. Software Investment Strategy L. Berstein and C.M. Yuhas 16. SW Development Using Domain-Specific SW Architectures Richhard N. Taylor, et al. 17. Productive Maintainability M.J.B. Garcia and J.C.G. Alvarez 18. The System Engineer and the Software Crisis David Johnson 19. An Illustration of Domain Analysis R.J. Leach 20. A Learning Curve Primer for Software Engineering L.B.S. Raccoon SURFING THE NET FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES Chuck Howell The MITRE Corporation MITRE Software Engineering Center 7525 Colshire Drive, M/S W624 McLean, VA 22102-3481 USA phone: (703) 883-6080 fax: (703) 883-1339 howell@mitre.org If there is any pattern or common theme in the collection of newsgroup ex- cerpts this month, it's certainly too subtle for me to discern (that's actually not saying much, but...). Another comment on this column flowed in since the last SEN (Keep 'em coming!), and it included two excellent suggestions: trim/condense the quoted postings, and add a section on interesting places to visit on the Net for those who do have and use Net access. As always, we aim to please. In addition to excerpts from comp.software-eng, I've added a section at the end with some interesting (to me anyway) sites to visit that may be relevant to SEN readers (and you know who you are). I've included the URL for the site and at least an excerpt from the home page, so that you can decide if you want to visit it. The topics of the comp.software-eng excerpts are: 1. Copyright information for software 2. Call for participation in a Software Engineering Standards Safety Planning Group 3. A brief summary of Fred Brooks' comments at the recent ICSE 4. An extended discussion of techniques for defect classification and post-inspection analysis The URL's cited are: 1. The NASA/UMD/CSC SW Engineering Lab (SEL) 2. The Data & Analysis Center for Software (DACS) 3. Information on Computer Related Repetitive Strain Injury 4. High Integrity SW System Assurance (HISSA) at NIST 5. Information about Semantics-Based Program Analysis and Manipu- lation As always, all suggestions appreciated. Thanks, Chuck __________________________________________________________________ From: lisch@tempest-sw.com (Ray Lischner) Subject: Re: Copyright notice? Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 06:46:20 GMT You can get copyright information from the US Government. Write to: Publications Section Copyright Office Library of Congress Washington, DC 20559 They have many publications about copyrights. You can ask for the Com- puter Programs information kit by number (#113), or you can order specific publications and forms, e.g., Copyright Basics (Circular 1), Copyright Fees (Circular 4), and Copyright Registration for Computer Programs (Circular 61). __________________________________________________________________ From: Lawrence2@llnl.gov (J. Dennis Lawrence) Date: 5 May 1995 19:51:40 GMT Call for Participation IEEE Software Engineering Standards Safety Planning Group The Master Plan for Software Engineering Standards was approved and published by the IEEE Software Engineering Standards Committee (SESC) in December 1993. This plan documents a statement of direction for the improvement of software engineering standards for a ten year period. A number of planning groups were established in 1994 to prepare plans on specific topics; more are being created in 1995. The Software Safety Plan- ning Group (SSPG) was created in early May, 1995. I am the chairman of this planning group. The purpose of the SSPG is to determine a statement of direction for IEEE standards for software safety. The SSPG is responsible for refining its initial charter and obtaining SESC approval of the revised charter, and preparing a draft Action Plan. Target dates for approval of the revised charter and action plan are September 1995 and June 1996, respectively. I invite all interested persons to join the planning group. I expect most of the work to be done via electronic mail, so distance and travel difficulties will not preclude participation. I am particularly interested in including people from all parts of the world. Each member is welcome to participate as much or as little as desired - from helping write the action plan to passive observation - all are welcome. If you wish to join the planning group, please let me know at the address listed below. I will need: Your name Company affiliation, if any Regular mail address Phone number Fax number Electronic mail address While I expect most of the work to be done via e-mail, there is likely to be an occasional need to circulate documents; hence my desire for other forms of address. A method will be established for inclusion of planning group members without e-mail. Please circulate this Call for Participation to anyone interested. I have sent it to the following places, so you may omit them: Mail Lists: hise-safety-critical mail list, sw-rel mail list, and system-safety mail list. Usenet groups: comp.risks, comp.software-eng, comp.std.misc, ieee.announce, and sci.eng.safety Thank you for your attention. Dr. J. Dennis Lawrence, Lawrence Liver- more National Laboratory, mail stop L-632, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550 USA. E-mail: lawrence2@llnl.gov __________________________________________________________________ From: holder@longs.att.com Subject: Re: Brooks at ICSE Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 18:53:54 GMT I was at the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) in Seattle last week and heard Dr. Brooks' talk. I'll try to summarize some of his points, but your best bet is to get the 20th Anniversary Edition of the Mythical Man-Month when it comes out this summer (from Addison- Wesley if I recall correctly). The 20AE-MMM reprints (unchanged) the 15 chapters of the original MMM, then Chapter 16 is a reprint of the No Silver Bullet article (from IEEE Software several years ago), Chapter 17 is No Silver Bullet Refired, Chapter 18 is Propositions of The Mythical Man-Month, and Chapter 19 is The Mythical Man-Month After 20 Years. The Brooks talk was the opening keynote address for the ICSE conference and was titled The Mythical Man-Month After 20 Years. See Chapter 19 of 20AE-MMM. I can't begin to express the insights and humor that Dr. Brooks provided in his talk, but here are some of the main points: o One of the central arguments of the original MMM was that coherence for the user was the main challenge in building products with big teams. Conceptual integrity is still the vital property for doing that. Also defining the User Set is necessary. The success of the WIMP (Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer) user interfaces is an example. o The Waterfall Model of software development (sequential analysis, design, implementation, testing, etc.) is WRONG! "Plan to Throw One Away" is wrong, too. Incremental build is better. Need to learn to grow, rather than build, software. o People are Everything. Most issues are managerial rather than tech- nical. o Parnas was Right and Brooks was Wrong about Encapsulation. Par- nas Families is a good design technique for evolution of software prod- ucts. o The biggest change in 20 years is that there are computers by the millions. This caught all software gurus and prognosticators by sur- prise. This changed how everybody used computers. This led to the "shrink-wrapped" software industry. Also led to "apps as pieces" of solutions (buy and build solutions) for implementing systems. o No Silver Bullet refired. The bet looks safe: there will be no 10x increase in productivity within the 10 years from a single tool/technology. Productivity is increasing about 2x every 10 years. Note that the Brooks talk (and the rest of the ICSE conference) was video- cast live over the MBone(?), and I would presume that it was videotaped as well. I would assume the IEEE (as sponsors of the conference) would have the tape available for purchase (does anybody know for sure?). Either way, take a look at the 20th Anniversary Edition of the book when it comes out (in July?). __________________________________________________________________ [Context: The following excerpts are from a relatively long discussion on comp.software-eng regarding software inspections. The specific thread that kicked off the following discussion was what guidance is given on classifying defects as major vs. minor in an inspection process. Ed.] From: bryk@ida.org (Bill Brykczynski) Subject: Re: Differences between Major and Minor Date: 12 Apr 1995 11:23:48 GMT Ed Weller (ed_weller-P26708@email.mot.com) wrote: As soon as the team starts discussing defect classification, they are losing sight of the inspection process goal. I advise that if it takes more than 5 seconds to classify the defect (after getting a good description of the defect), then you are spending too much time. Call it major, and let the producer change it afterwards if it turns out to be a minor defect during rework. I ran across an interesting paper the other day that relates to this thread. The paper is: Chaar, Jarir K., Michael J. Halliday, Inderpal S. Bhandari, and Ram Chillarege. In-Process Evaluation for Software Inspection and Test, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 11, Nov. 1993, pp. 1055-1070. The paper describes the use of the Orthogonal Defect Classification scheme in conjunction with the software inspection process. The goal of ODC seems to be to squeeze more juice out of the fruit we call defect analysis. Although I don't remember the authors discussing defect severity (e.g., major/minor), they do talk about defect classification in terms of defect types (e.g., function, interface, checking, assignment, timing/serialization). More interesting are defect triggers, which (for inspections) are "what was the event that triggered the inspector to find the defect?" Example triggers include design conformance, backward compatibility, lateral compatibility, language dependencies, and rare situation. The inspection author/producer assigns the defect type during rework, and the inspectors assign the trigger. The paper provides some initial estimates of the time it takes to perform the classification. Given the general (yet orthogonal) types described in the paper, it would seem that it wouldn't take too long to assign a trigger. The defect type is assigned by the pro- ducer/author during rework. [...] Question for the net: Does anyone have any experience with ODC? An abstract for the above paper follows. Abstract: The goal of software inspection and test is to reduce the expected cost of software failure over the life of a product. This paper extends the use of defect triggers, the events that cause defects to be discovered, to help evaluate the effectiveness of inspections and test scenarios. In the case of inspections, the defect trigger is defined as a set of values that associate the skills of the inspector with the discovered defect. Similarly, for test scenarios, the defect trigger values embody the deferring strategies being used in creating these scenarios. The usefulness of triggers in evaluating the effectiveness of software in- spections and tests is demonstrated by evaluating the inspection and test activities of some software products. These evaluations are used to point to both deficiencies in inspection and test strategies and to progress made in improving such strategies. The trigger distribution of the entire inspection or test series may then be used to highlight areas for further investigation, with the aim of improving the design, implementation, and test processes. [Stan Rifken replies:] From: sr@seas.gwu.edu (Stan Rifkin) Subject: Re: Differences between Major and Minor Date: 13 Apr 1995 03:03:09 -0400 .. Question for the net: Does anyone have any experience with ODC? Yes, I teach it as part of inspections training, so many of my clients use it. It is a vast improvement IMHO over defect causal analysis and other "home grown" methods & processes of defect classification. I understand that IBM is trying to establish it as a standard based on the article above and its successors and predecessors. In fact, I think there is a new article being published soon on a re-work of the ODC defect categories. The fundamental article on ODC is Orthogonal defect classification - a con- cept for in-process measurements, by Ram Chillarege, Inderpal Bhandari, Jarir Chaar, Michael Halliday, et al., IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., v18n11, Nov 92, 943-55. It's a sleeper of an article and contains many, many inter- esting practices, besides presenting the defect classification. One clear advantage of ODC is that it works for all kinds of software and all kinds of efforts and life cycles (e.g., full-scale development, integration of shrink-wrap products, prototyping, maintenance, etc.). Accordingly, one does not have to invent categories of different types of software or activities. I could go on about its advantages. Suffice it to say that it has meant that my clients can start using defect classification without arguing about which categories would be best, whether a particular bug belongs in this category or that (the ODC categories are far apart from each other, obviating the arguments), and who should classify the defects (the producer does because he/she has studied the bug and knows it best; every other scheme is a guess). - Stan Rifkin [and now Bill Brykczynski replies to Stan's posting:] From: bryk@ida.org (Bill Brykczynski) Subject: Re: Differences between Major and Minor Date: 14 Apr 1995 22:02:44 GMT [...] One of the successor articles Stan alluded to is In-process Improve- ment through Defect Data Interpretation, by Bhandari, Halliday, Chaar, Chillarege, Jones, Atkinson, Lepori-Costello, Jasper, Taarver, Lewis, and Yonezaw, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1994, pp. 182-215. The article draws inspection data from 7 different projects, showing how ODC and "attribute focusing" can aid developers in spotting potential areas for process improvement. Attribute focusing is (in my words) an automated method that churns out "interesting" relationships drawn from defect data. A simple example follows. Assume you are modifying a portion of a legacy system. Your inspections are not turning up many "lateral compatibility triggers" (triggers are a key part of ODC, and lateral compatibility is one of the triggers). You might investigate and determine that a person more experienced with the legacy system should be involved in reviewing that portion of the development effort. This example is discussed in the paper. More complex examples are also described. There are a *lot* of examples in the paper, drawn from the projects. .. Stan, could you elaborate on your clients ODC usage? Clearly, the "O" in ODC is a boon for reducing/eliminating arguments about which category to use. Do you advise your clients to use ODC as an aid for determining when to re-inspect (as in the Chaar paper)? What do you advise your clients do differently post-inspection using ODC rather than other classifi- cation schemes? [This final excerpt is Stan's reply to Bill's posting:] From: sr@seas.gwu.edu (Stan Rifkin) Subject: Re: Orthogonal defect classification (was Differences between Ma- jor and Minor) Date: 17 Apr 1995 07:08:55 -0400 [...] If the client had an existing defect causal analysis (DCA) process, then ODC slides right in, curing many deficiencies. If the client is just starting inspections - which is the other end of the spectrum - then it is enough to have the defects classified and tallied. Re-inspection is too big a jump. At the beginning, it is enough just to get inspections conducted. What is done differently post-inspection meeting, is that the author clas- sifies the defect as a natural part of curing it. There is nothing like the Gilb method, wherein the reviewers GUESS about the defect classifications and perhaps the cause and phase injected during the last bit of each defect collection meeting. Instead with ODC, there is no reviewer time spent on defect classification, only the producer classifies defects, after the process * *of repairing/removing it. Then, as part of the data collection post-inspection, the defects are reported along with their classifications. In teaching Watts Humphrey's Personal Software Process I have noticed some pretty clear patterns using ODC. At first, typical authors would have 40 defects on simple programs. They are required to reflect on the causes and propose and implement process improvements based on the systematic feedback provided by ODC. Now the typical author reports about 4 errors, after, say, 4-5 programs. I attribute the dramatic decrease in errors to the systematization of the error feedback provided by ODC. Hope this helps. - Stan __________________________________________________________________ URLs I have known, or "For a good time, visit..." __________________________________________________________________ http://fdd.gsfc.nasa.gov/seltext.html The Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) Overview Welcome to the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) home page. The Software Engineering Laboratory was founded in 1976 by the Flight Dynamics Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center for the purpose of understanding and improving the organization's software process and product. Each of the 3 member organizations of the SEL: o the SW Eng. Branch (SEB) at NASA/GSFC Code 552 o the CS Dept. at the University of Maryland o the SW Eng. Operation (SEO) of Computer Sciences Corp. plays a key role in SEL activities: o the SEB as the user and manager of the relevant software systems o the University of Maryland as the focus for advanced concepts in software process and experimentation o the SEO/CSC as the major contractor responsible for building and maintaining the software used to support the NASA missions. The SEL was honored to receive the 1994 IEEE Computer Society Award for Software Process Achievement in recognition of the significant impact that SEL concepts have made on the industry. This international award honors the SEL's software process improvement approach which has re- sulted in demonstrated sustained improvement in software reliability, func- tional cost and development cycle time as measured on over 120 FDD projects. The original goal of the SEL was to apply evolving software technologies in the actual development environment and measure the impact of these technologies on the products being created. In this way, the most ben- eficial approaches could be identified through empirical studies and then made available to the developers once improvements were identified. Thus, SEL staffers in the 70's and early 80's began by establishing an under- standing of the local software business. They focused on building basic models and quantifying relationships between these parameters and the in- dividual technologies being studied. A number of technologies were studied and successfully incorporated into standard practice. During recent years, however, the SEL has evolved well beyond single technology studies and has formalized an approach that uses the experiences of the development organization to drive process changes and new technology insertion. Measurement data from over 120 FDD development and maintenance ef- forts have been collected and analyzed to determine a product and process baseline and to measure the impacts of changes to this baseline. Over 200 reports have been produced describing the SEL organization, improvement approach, studies and measures. __________________________________________________________________ http://www.utica.kaman.com/ Welcome to the Data & Analysis Center for Software The DACS is a Department of Defense (DoD) Information Analysis Cen- ter (IAC), administratively managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) under the DoD IAC Program. The DACS is technically managed by Rome Laboratory (RL). Kaman Sciences Corporation man- ages and operates the DACS, serving as a centralized source for current, readily available data and information concerning software engineering and software technology. Interested in a specific topic? Try searching the DACS pages. o About the DACS - DACS Information Overview - Spring 1995 Users Catalog - Initiating a DACS Special Study o DACS Databases o Current Awareness - What's New at the DACS - Newsletters - DACS Virtual Library - Calendar of Events o Training and Education Programs o Internet Services o Software Tools Distributed by the DACS o DACS Technical Reports On-Line __________________________________________________________________ http://www.engr.unl.edu/ee/eeshop/rsi.html Computer Related Repetitive Strain Injury THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN. As more and more educational work involves using computers, students and instructors alike need to be aware of the hazard of Repetitive Strain Injury to the hands and arms resulting from the use of computer keyboards and mice. This can be a serious and very painful condition that is far easier to prevent than to cure once contracted, and can occur even in young physically fit individuals. It is not uncommon for people to have to leave computer-dependent careers as a result, or even to be permanently disabled and unable to perform tasks such as driving or dressing themselves. I've faced this problem myself since March of 1994, and many friends are also affected to varying degrees. I am not a health care professional, but I hope on this page to provide a very brief introduction to RSI for the benefit of students who may not be aware of the potential for a life-altering injury. It will include links to the Internet resources that have been so helpful in educating me about this. If you have some questions, don't hesitate to get in touch. -Paul Marxhausen __________________________________________________________________ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wls/www/sbpm.html Semantics-Based Program Analysis and Manipulation This page identifies research resources related to semantics based program analysis and manipulation. You can help make it more complete: Please send text, URLs, and other citations (along with text for the what's new page). Email to scherlis@cs.cmu.edu. __________________________________________________________________ http://nemo.ncsl.nist.gov/ahis/CHISSA.html HIGH INTEGRITY SOFTWARE SYSTEM ASSURANCE (HISSA) Advanced technology is a crucial element in almost every industry, service, and aspect of life. For example, manufactured products are built with the help of computer software, they contain computer software, and manufac- turing business is managed with computer software. High integrity software is software that can and must be trusted to work dependably in these and other critical functions (e.g., software in safety systems of nuclear power plants, medical devices, electronic banking, air traffic control, automated manufacturing, and some business systems). Computer software is a major component for any of these technologies. Quality is a basic requirement of software in end systems, support systems, and research systems. The success of the United States economic program relies on the quality of computer software. The High Integrity Software System Assurance project provides technol- ogy to produce high integrity, affordable software for productive use. The sophistication and cost of techniques to produce quality software are com- mensurate with the need for assurance. The project focuses on the following areas: o guidance to establish fundamental life cycle processes for development and maintenance of quality computer software, and o advanced assurance technology in development, evaluation, and mea- surement methods to address specific problems. Current projects o [NEW] Software Development and Approaches o [NEW] Software Assurance o [NEW] High Integrity Software Standards o [NEW] High Integrity Software Issues o [NEW] Software Reuse Public / Collaborative Activities o Center for High Integrity SW Sys. Assurance (CHISSA) o Lecture Series: High Integrity Software Systems o Computer Assurance Conference (COMPASS) o Workshops Technical Publications o [MAIL] Please send us your comments. Please Send Questions Concerning HISSA to Dolores Wallace: dwal- lace@nist.gov _ Maintained by Jim Graham. E-mail: jgraham@nist.gov Calendar of Future Events CALENDAR OF EVENTS SIGSOFT Supported Conferences 1995 WCRE'95:2nd Working Conf. on Rev. Eng. (co-sponsored) 14-16 Jul 1995 - e.chikofsky@computer.org SIGSOFT'95 (sponsored) 10-13 Oct - gannon@cs.umd.edu 8th ACM Symposium on User Interface & SW Tech. (in cooperation) 15-17 Nov - bam@cs.cmu.edu KBSE-95 (in cooperation) 12-15 Nov - kbse-info@cs.rpi.edu 1996 ISSTA'96 (sponsored) 8-10 Jan - dillon@cs.ucsb.edu Formal Methods in Software Practice (sponsored) 11 Jan - sriram.sankar@sun.com ISOTAS'96 (in cooperation) 11-15 Mar - isotas96@jaist.ac.jp 4th Int. Workshop on HW/SW Codesign (in cooperation) 18-20 Mar - Don Thomas IWSSD-8: 8th Int. Wkshp on SW Spec. and Design (in cooperation) 22-23 Mar - iwssd8@cs.colorado.edu ICSE 18: 18th Int'l Conf. on Software Engineering (co-sponsored) 25-30 Mar - icse18@informatik.uni-kl.de 9th Conference on SW Engineering Educationin (in cooperation) 21-24 Apr - education@sei.cmu.edu SIGSOFT'96 (sponsored) 20-24 Oct - sigsoft@acm.org (`* =)' SIGSOFT sponsored event; `=)' SIGSOFT in cooperation event ) 9-13 July 1995, SIGIR '95: 19th Int. Conf. on Research De- velopment in Inf. Retrieval, Sheraton Hotel, Seattle, WA. Contact: Raya Fidel, GSLIS FM-30, UW, Seattle, WA 98195; (206) 543-1888 (fi- delr@u.washington,.edu). 13-15 July 1995, 1st Wrksp on Sim. and Interaction in Virtual Env., UI, Iowa House, Iowa City, IA. Contact: James Cremer, CS Dept., University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242; (319) 335-0736 (cremer@cs.uiowa.edu). * =) 9-14 July 1995, CASE '95: 7th Int. Wrksp on Computer- Aided SW Eng., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Contact: General Chair Jacob Slonim, Head of Research, Centre for Advanced Studies, IBM Canada Ltd., 21/894, 844 Don Mills Road, North York, Ontario Canada M3C 1V7; (416) 448-2245, fax: -2859, (js- lonim@vnet.ibm.com). =) 14-16 July 1995, WCRE-95: 2ND Working Conf. on Rev. Eng., Toronto Hilton, Toronto, Canada. Contact: Elliot Chikofsky, DMR Group, 404 Wyman St., Suite 450, Waltham, MA 02154; (617) 487-9070, fax: -6752 (e.chikofsky@computer.org). 10-12 July 1995, ISSAC '95: Int. Symp. on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, Concordia U, Montreal, Canada. Contact: Stephen Watt, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598; (914) 945-3405 (smwatt@watson.ibm.com). 16-18 July 1995, SPAA '95: 7th Annual ACM Symp. on Parallel Algo- rithms and Architectures, Santa Barbara, CA. Contact: Charles E. Leis- erson, MIT Laboratory for CS, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139; (617) 253-5833 (cel@theory.lcs.mit.edu). 19-21 July 1995, PPoPP '95: Princ. & Practices of Parallel Prog., UCSB, CA. Contact: Jeanne Ferrante, IBM, Room H2-D52, P.O. Box 704, York- town Heights, NY 10598; (914) 784-7462 (ferrant@watson.ibm.com). 13-16 Aug 1995, COOCS '95: Conf. on Organizational Computing Sys- tems, Sheraton Silicon Valley, Milpitas, CA. Contact: Nora Comstock, In- stitute for Int. Initiatives, 3103 Loyola Lane, Austin, TX 78723; (512) ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes vol 20 no 3July 1995 Page 13 476-3255 (loyola!nora@cs.utexas.edu). 16-18 Aug 1995, WADS'95: Wkshp on Algorithms and Data Struc- tures, Kingston, Ont., Canada. Contact: H. Meijer, C&IS Dept., Queen's Univ., Kingston, Ont. K7L 3N6, CA; (613) 545-6057, fax: -6513 (WADS95 LA@qucis.queensu.ca). 20-23 Aug 1995, PODC '95: 14th Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, Ottawa, Ont., Canada. Contact: James Ander- son, CS Dept., UNC, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175; (919) 962-1767 (ander- son@cs.unc.edu). 21-25 Aug 1995, ISSES95: 2nd Int. Symp. on SW Eng. Standards, Queen Elizabeth Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Contact: Joseph Cote, General Chair, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 300 Laurier Ave. West, 10th Floor, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0R5; (613) 957-2496, fax: -8700. 22-25 Aug 1995, New Security Paradigms Wksp IV, Residence Inn, La Jolla, CA. Contact: Hilary Hosmer, Data Security, Inc., 58 Wilson Road, Bedford, MA 01730; (617) 275-8231 (hosmer@dockmaster.ncsc.mil). 23-25 Aug 1995, Symp. on Designing Interactive Systems: Proc., Practices, Methods & Techniques UM, Ann Arbor, MI. Contact: Allan MacLean, Rank Xerox Research Centre, 61 Regent St., Cambridge, CB2 1AB England; +44-223-341517 (maclean.europarc@rx.xerox.com). 28-31 Aug 1995, SW Technology and Intelligent Systems Symp., West- fields International Conference Center, Chantilly, VA. Contact: Digital Sys- tems Research, 4301 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22203, ATTN: SISTO Symposium; (sisto-symp95@arpa.mil). 28-30 Aug 1995, WISR'95: 6th Int. Wksp on Institutionalizing SW Reuse, St. Charles, IL. Contact: Kevin Wentzel, HP Labs, 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94303-1126; (415) 857-4018, fax: -8526 (wentzel@hpl.hp.com). 29 Aug -1 Sept 1995, ASP-DAC'95: Asia Pacific Design Automation Conf., Nippon Conv. Center, Makuhari, Japan. Contact: Tatsuo Oht- suki, Dept. of Electronics & Communication Eng., School of Science & Eng., Waseda U, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169; +81-3-3203- 4141 (ohtsuki@jpnwasoo.bitnet). 18-22 Sept 1995, 9TH USENIX Systems Administration Conf. (LISA IX), Monterey, CA. Contact: USENIX Conf. Office; 714 588-8649, fax: -9706, (Conf.@usenix.org). 25-27 Sept 1995, 9th European Wrksp on SW Maint., Durham, UK. Contact: Malcolm Munro, University of Durham; +44 (0)191 374 2630, fax: +44 (0) 191 374 2560 (Malcolm.Munro@durham.ac.uk). 30 Sept -3 Oct 1995, SIGDOC '95: 13th Annual Conf. on Systems Documentation, Hyatt Regency Savannah, Savannah, GA., Contact: Nina Wishbow, Bell Northern Research Carling Stop 231, P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K14 4H7; (613) 765-4941 (nwishbow at bnr.ca ). * =) 10-13 Oct 1995, SIGSOFT '95: Foundations of SW Eng. (FSE3), Hyatt Regency Washington, Wash- ington, DC. Contact: John Gannon, UM, CS Dept., A.V. Williams Bldg., College Park, MD 20742; (301) 405-2671 (gannon@CS.UMD.EDU). 16-20 Oct 1995, ICSM'95: Int. Conf. on SW Maint. '95, Opio (Nice), ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes vol 20 no 3July 1995 Page 14 France. Contact: Gianluigi Caldiera, CS Dept., UM, College Park, MD 20742; (301) 405-2707, fax: -6707 (gianl@cs.umd.edu). 12-18 Oct 1995 SIGUCCS User Services Conf. XXIII, Marriott Pavil- ion, St. Louis, MO. Contact: John E. Bucher, Computer & Network Ser- vices, 16 Nichols Hall, KSU, Manhattan, KS 66506-2305; (913) 532-4900 (jbucher@ksuvm.ksu.edu). 23-26 Oct 1995, ICSQ95: The 1995 Int. Conf. on SW Quality, Austin, TX. Program chair: Dr. Joyce Statz, TeraQuest Metrics, Inc., P.O. Box 200490, Austin, TX 78720-0490; (512) 345-3593, (statz@acm.org). 30 Oct. - 3 Nov. 1995, Professional Development Seminars, Wash- ington DC Chapter of the ACM, Contact: WDC ACM P.O. BOX 39110, Washington, DC 20016; (202) 462-1215 (dcseminars@acm.org). 5-9 Nov 1995, ICCAD '95: Int. Conf. on CAD, Red Lion Hotel, San Jose, CA. Contact: Richard L. Rudell, Synopsys, Inc., 700 E. Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94043-4033; (415) 694-4337 (rudell@synopsys.com). 5-10 Nov 1995, Tri-Ada '95, Disneyland Hotel, Anaheim, CA. Contact: Terry Doran, Grumman Corp., Grumman Aerospace & Electronic, 1111 Stewart Ave., M/S B38-35, Bethpage, NY 11714-3582; (516) 346-8553 (do- ran@nosc.mil). 10-11 Nov 1995, TAU '95: Int. ACM Wrksp on Timing Issues in the Spec. and Synthesis of Digital Systems, UW, Seattle, WA. Contact: Karem Sakallah, UM, EE&CS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122; (313) 936-1350 (karem@eecs.umich.edu). 13-15 Nov 1995, ACM Int. Conf. on Mobile Computing and Networking, Claremont Hotel, Berkeley, CA. Contact: Imrich Chlamtac, EE&CS Dept., UM, Amherst, MA 01003; (617) 332-1101 (chlamtac@ecs.umass.edu). 6-11 Nov 1995, ACM Mulitmedia '95: 3rd Int. Conf. on Multimedia, Hy- att Regency Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA. Contact: Bob Allen, Bell- core, 445 South St., Morristown, NJ 07962; (201) 829-4315; fax: -5981 (rba@bellcore.com). =) 15-17 Nov 1995, UIST '95: 8th ACM Symp. on User In- terface and SW Tech., Westin William Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh, PA. Contact: Brad Myers, CS Dept., CMU, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15123-3891; (412) 268-5150 (bam@cs.cmu.edu). =) 12-15 Nov 1995, KBSE-95: 10th Knowledge-Based SW Eng. Conf., Boston, MA. Contact: Patti McCormick, Data and Anal- ysis Center for SW, P.O. Box 120, Utica, NY; (315) 734-3625 (kbse-info@cs.rpi.edu). 29 Nov -2 Dec 1995, CIKM '95: Conf. on Inf. and Knowledge Manage- ment, Omni Hotel, Baltimore, MD. Contact: Charles Nicholas, CS Dept., UM at Baltimore County, 5401 Wilkens Ave., Baltimore, MD 21228; (410) 455-2594 (nicholas@cs.umbc.edu). 29 Nov -1 Dec 1995, Int'l. Conf. on Computer Applications in Industry and Eng., Sheraton Princess Kaiulani, Honolulu, HI. Contact: Ashok Goel, MTU.; (906) 487-2868. 3-6 Dec 1995, 15th ACM Symp. on OS Principles, Copper Mnt. Resort, Copper Mnt., CO. Contact: John K. Bennett, EE&CE Dept., Rice Univ., P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251; (713) 527-4025 (jkb@rice.edu). 3-6 Dec 1995, 1995 Winter Sim. Conf., Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Arlington, VA. Contact: Bill Lilegdon, Pritsker Corp., 8910 Purdue Road, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46268; (317) 471-6530. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes vol 20 no 3July 1995 Page 15 4-8 Dec 1995, EDUGRAPHICS '95: 2nd Int'l. Conf. on Graphics Ed. and COMPUGRAPHICS '95, 4th Int'l. Conf. on Computational Graphics and Visualization Techniques, Hotel Alvor Praia, Alvor, Algarve, Portugal. Contact: Harold P. SANTO, Dpt Civil Eng. - IST, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1096 Lisboa Codex Portugal; +351-1-848-2425 (chpsanto@beta.ist.utl.pt). 7-9 Dec 1995, 1st World Conf. on Integrated Design & Process Tech., IC2 Institute at UT, Austin. Contact: Atila Ertas, Mechanical Engineering Dept., TTU, PO Box 1021 Lubboch, TX 79409-1021; (806) 742-3563, fax: -3540 (meae@coe3.coe.ttu.edu). * =) 8-10 Jan 1996, ISSTA 1996 - Int'l Symp. on SW Testing and Analysis, San Diego, CA. Contact: Laura Dillon, CS Dept., UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; (805) 893-3411 (dillon@cs.ucsb.edu); 8-10 Jan 1996, 4th Int. Wrksp on AI in Economics and Management, Dan Panorama Hotel & Conf. Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Contact: Phillip Ein-Dor, Faculty of Management, Tel-Aviv Univ., Tel-Aviv, 69978 Israel; +972-3-6408071 (eindor@aiem96.tau.ac.il). * =) 11 Jan 1996, 1st Wrksp on Formal Methods in SW Practice, San Diego, CA. Contact: Sriram Sankar, Sun Microsystems Labs, 2550 Garcia Ave., UMTV29- 112 Mountain View, CA 94043-1100. (415) 336-6230 (sriram.sankar@sun.com). 14-15 Feb 1996, Computers and the Quality of Life, Shera- ton/Philadelphia Conf. Center, Philadelphia, PA. Contact: C. Dianne Martin, CS&E Dept.. GWU, Academic Center, Room T624C, 801 22nd St. N.W., Washington, DC 20052; (202) 994-8238, (diannem@seas.gwu.edu). 15-17 Feb 1996 SIGCSE '96: 27th SIGCSE Technical Symp. on CS Ed., Philadelphia, PA. Contact: John Impagliazzo, CS Dept., 103 Hofstra Univ., Hempstead, NY 11550-1090; (516) 463-6774 (cscjzi@vaxc.hofstra.edu). =) 11-15 March 1996, ISOTAS'96 - 2nd Int'l. Symp. on Object Tech. for Adv. SW, Kanazawa, Japan. Contact:Prof. Tatsuo NAKAJIMA School of Inf. Sci,, Japan Advanced Inst. of Science and Tech. (JAIST), 15 Asahidai, Tatsunokuchi, Ishikawa 923-12, Japan; +81-761-51-1303, fax: -1149 (isotas96@jaist.ac.jp). =) 18-20 Mar 1996, 4th Int. Wrksp on HW/SW Codesign, Sher- aton Station Square, Pittsburgh, PA. Contact: Don Thomas, E&CE Dept., CMU, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15217. =) 22-23 March 1996, IWSSD-8 - 8th Int. Wrksp on SW Spec. and Design, Paderborn, Germany. Contact: Alex Wolf, CS Dept. ECOT 7-7, CB 430, UC, Boulder, CO 80309; (303) 492-4774 (iwssd8@cs.colorado.edu). * =) 25-30 Mar 1996, ICSE-18, Technical Univ., Berlin, Germany. Contact: H. Dieter Rombach, Universit"at Kaiserslautern, Germany; +49 (631) 205-2895, fax: - 3331; WWW Server: http://www.gmd.de/Events/ICSE18; (icse18@informatik.uni-kl.de) 1-5 April 1996, Professional Development Seminars, Washington DC Chapter of the ACM. Contact: WDC ACM P.O. BOX 39110, Washing- ton, DC 20016, (202)462-1215; (dcseminars@acm.org). 11-12 April 1996, ASSETS '96: 2nd Int. ACM/SIGCAPH Conf. on As- sistive Technologies, Vancouver, BC Canada. Contact: Ephraim P. Glinert, RPI, CS Dept., Troy, NY 12180; (518) 6-2657 (glinert@cs.rpi.edu). ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes vol 20 no 3July 1995 Page 16 11-13 Apr 1996, SIGCPR '96: Computer Personnel Research Conf. Den- ver, CO. Contact: Lorne Olfman, IS Dept., Claremont Graduate School, 130 East 9th St., Claremont, CA 91711; (909) 621-8209 (olfmanl@cgs.edu). 13-18 April 1996, CHI '96: ACM Conf. on Human Factors & Comp. Sys., Conv. Center, Vancouver, BC Canada. Contact: Kevin Schofield, Microsoft Corp., One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052; (206) 936-3748. * =) 21-24 Apr 1996, 9th Conf. on SW Eng. Ed., Daytona Beach, FL. Contact: Charlene Rauber, SEI, CMU, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890; (412) 268-3007, fax: -5758 (education@sei.cmu.edu). 23-26 April 1996, 4th Int. Conf. on SW Reuse, Orlando, FL. Con- tact: Murali Sitaraman, Statistics and CS, WVU, 114 Knapp Hall, PO Box 6330, Morgantown, WV 26506-6330; (304) 293-3607, fax: -2272 (icsr4@cs.wvu.edu). 21-24 May 1996, SIGPLAN '96: Programming Lang. Design & Imple- mentation, Philadelphia Marriott, Philadelphia, PA. Contact: Charles Fis- cher, CS Dept., UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison, WI 53706, (608) 262-1204 (fischer@cs.wisc.edu). 22-24 May 1996, PADS '96: ACM/IEEE 10th Wrksp on Parallel and Distributed Sim., Philadelphia Marriott, Philadelphia, PA. Contact: Mary L. Bailey, CS Dept., Gould-Simpson, UA, Tucson, AZ 85721; (520) 621- 4526, (mlb@cs.arizona.edu). 24-26 May 1996, Int. Conf. on Functional Programming and It's Exten- sions, Philadelphia Marriott, Philadelphia, PA. Contact: Robert Harper, School of CS, CMU, Doherty Hall 4308, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891; (412) 268-3675 (swh@cs.cmu.edu). 3-7 June 1996, DAC '96: 33rd Design Automation Conf. Las Vegas Conv. Center, Las Vegas, NV. Contact: MP Associates, Inc., 5305 Spine Road, Ste. A, Boulder, CO 80301; (303) 530-4333, fax: -4334. 4-9 Aug 1996, SIGGRAPH '96: 23rd Int. ACM Conf. on Computer Graphics & Interactive Techniques, Ernest N. Morial Conv. Center, New Orleans, LA. Contact: Ray Elliott, 1616 Sagebrush Court SE, Albuquerque, NM 87123; (rle@lanl.gov). -- \/\/ill Tracz - Loral Federal Systems, Mail Drop 0210, (607) 751-2169 tracz@lfs.loral.com - 1801 State Route 17C, Owego, NY 13827-3998 fax 6025