DesaiEtal05

1. Nirmit Desai & Ashok U Mallya & Amit K Chopra & Munindar P Singh
2. Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes
3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V31n12(Dec 2005)pp1015-1027
4. =THEORY MODEL BUSINESS PROCESS COMMITMENTS SCENARIOS OWL-P AGENTS ROLES \pi-CALCULUS
5. Proposes a logic of commitments between agents.
6. Uses sequence charts containing commitments to describe protocols.
7. Implies that activity diagrams are a bad way to describe business processes. Entangles different agents with each other. So unstable.
   
8. (dick) |- take home message: don't use control flows to model work flow.

BontempsHeymansSchobbens05

1. Yves Bontemps & Patrick Heymans & Pierre-Yves Schobbens
2. From Live Sequence Charts to State Machines and Back: A Guided Tour
3. IEEE Trans Software Engineering V31n12(Dec 2005)pp999-1014
4. =THEORY REQUIREMENTS SCENARIOS SSDs MSC Message Sequence diagrams LSC Live sequence charts FSM/STD STATE CHARTS
5. Proves that most problems linking message sequence charts to state based models are intractable -- efficient automation may be impossible. [Harel01]

SchmidtDC06

1. Douglas C Schmidt
2. Model-Driven Engineering
3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n2(Feb 2006)pp25-31
4. =ADVERT =HISTORY CASE DOMAIN MODEL
5. MDE::="Model-Driven Engineering".
6. DSML::="Domain-Specific Modeling Language",
7. MIC::="Model-Integrated Computing [ http://mic.omg.org ]
8. Much hype little technical evaluation.
9. sidebar: Model-Centric Software Development -- (MCSD) Notes "In our experience working with large-scale systems a prominent cause of inflated software development costs and extended time-to-market stems from serialized phasing, which makes it hard to evaluate design decisions[...]"

BalasubramianEtal06

1. Krishnakuma Balasubramian & Aniruddh Gokhale & Gabor Karsai & Janos Sztipanovits & Sandeep Neema
2. Developing applications using model-driven design environments
3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n2(Feb 2006)pp33-40
4. =DEMO MDD not MDA GME PICML ECSL DOMAIN MODEL LANGUAGES DSML
5. DSML::="Domain-Specific Modeling Language".
6. MIC::="Model-Integrated Computing".
7. Models replace programming languages, and each application domain has customized modeling languages.
8. GME:="Generic modeling environment", Vanderbilt University [ gme ]
9. PICML::="Platform independent component modeling language".

Geer06

1. David Geer
2. Will Software Developers Ride Ruby on Rails to success
3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n2(Feb 2006)pp18-20
4. =ESSAY Ruby Rails MVC WWW DATA platform
5. Ruby::scripting_language.
6. Rails::framework=supports data base access and MVC GUIs, Define controllers, views, ... Uses the DRY: Don't Repeat Yourself principle.

FranceEtal06

1. Robert B France & Sudipto Ghosh & Trung Dinh-Trong & Arnor Solberg
2. Model-Driven Development Using UML 2.0: Promises and Pitfalls
3. IEEE Computer Magazine V39n2(Feb 2006)pp59-66
4. =ESSAY MODELING MDD UML2.0 meta-models semantics
5. MDD::="Model-Driven Development", the next level of abstraction above 3rd generation programming languages.
6. Good survey of UML2.0
7. Interaction modeling hard to extract from the metamodel
8. Semantics still too loose -- variation points.
9. Need metamodeling tools to enable MDD

Krill06

1. Paul Krill
2. Agile programming has fallen short, conference told
3. Infoworld(13 Mar 2006) [ 76420_HNmcconnell_1.html ]
4. =REPORT McConnell BEST & WORST IDEAS Agile RISKS REQUIREMENTS ITERATION INCREMENTAL EVOLUTION REUSE ONE SIZE
5. Importance of people, evolution, risk, estimation, management,...
6. One size does not fit all: different projects need different processes