Ulf Leonhardt
Jeff Kramer
Bashar Nuseibeh
- 1.In A. van Lamsweerede and A. Fugetta, editors, Proceedings of the 3rd European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC '91), volume 55o of LNCS, Milan, Italy, October 1991. Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.L. Ballesteros. Using ViewPoints to Support the FU- SION Object-Oriented Method. M. SC. Thesis, Department of Computing, ImperiaJ College, London, UK, September 1992.Google Scholar
- 3.R. Balzer. Tolerating inconsistency. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, Austin, Texas, May 1991. IEEE CS press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 4.N. Barghouti and G. Kaiser. Scaling up rule-based software development environments. In van Lamsweerede and Fugetta {1}, pages 380-395. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5.Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., Murray Hill, New Jersey. UNIX programmer's manual, seventh edition, 1983. Volume 2.Google Scholar
- 6.I. Ben-Shaul and G. Kaiser. A paradigm for decentralized process modeling and its realization in the OZ environment. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 179-188, Sorrento, Italy, May 1994. IEEE CS press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 7.S. Easterbrook, A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh. Coordinating Distributed ViewPoints: the anatomy of a consistency check. International Journal on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Special issue on conflict management, 2(3), 1994.Google Scholar
- 8.A. Finkelstein, D. Gabbay, A. Hunter, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh. Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. In IEEE Transactions on Sofiware Engineering, August 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.A. Finkelstein and J. Kramer. TARA: Tool assisted requirements analysis. In Conceptual Modelling, Databases & CASE: an integrated view of information system development. McGraw Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
- 10.A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, M. Goedicke, and L. Finkelstein. ViewPoints: A Framework for integrating multiple Perspectives in System Development.International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2(1):31-58, March 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 11.P. Graubmann. The HyperView Tool Standard Methods. REX technical report REX-WP3-SIE-008-V1 .0, Siemens, Germany, July 1990.Google Scholar
- 12.P. Graubmann. The Petri Net Method ViewPoints in the HyperView Tool. REX technical report REX-WP3- SIE-021-V1.0, Siemens, Germany, January 1992.Google Scholar
- 13.H. Iida, K. Mimura, K. Inoue, and K. Torii. Hakoniwa Monitor and navigation system for cooperative development based on activity sequence model. In %-td International Conference on the Software Process, pages 64-74, Berlin, Germany, 1993.Google Scholar
- 14.M. Jarke, K. Pohl, C. Rolland, and J, Schmitt, Experience-Based Method Evaluation and Improvement: A Process Modeling Approach. NATURE Report Series 94-15, ESPRIT Project 6353, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
- 15.J. Kramer. CASE Support for the Software Process: A Research Viewpoint. In van Lamsweerede and Fugetta {1}. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16.J. Kramer and A. Finkelstein. A configurable framework for method and tool integration. In European Symposium on Sofiware Development Environments and CASE, volume 509 of LNCS, pages 233-257, Konigswinter, Germany, June 1991. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.Fui Kien Lai. CORE in The Viewer. M. SC. Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK, September 1993.Google Scholar
- 18.U. Leonhardt, A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh. Decentralised process enactment. Technical Report 95/5, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK, January 199s.Google Scholar
- 19.K. Narayanaswamy and N. Goldman. "Lazy" Consistency: A Basis for Cooperative Software Development. In Proceedings of CSC W'9.2, pages 257-264, Toronto, Canada, 1992. ACM press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20.B. Nuseibeh and A. Finkelstein. Viewpoints: A vehicle for method and tool integration. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE '92), pages 50-60, Montreal, Canada, July 1992. IEEE CS press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 21.B. Nuseibeh, A. Finkelstein, and J. Kramer. Finegrain process modelling. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD- 7), pages 42-46, Redondo Beach, California, December 1993. IEEE CS Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 22.B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A. Finkelstein. Expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 187- 196, Baltimore, Maryland, May 1993. IEEE CS press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23.B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A. Finkelstein. A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. In IEEE Transactions on So&ware Engineering, volume 20, pages 760- 773. IEEE CS Press, October 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 24.T. Thanitsukkarn. The Constructive Viewer. M. SC. Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK, September 1993.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Decentralised process enactment in a multi-perspective development environment
Recommendations
A Decentralized Architecture for Software Process Modeling and Enactment
Many development teams, especially distributed teams, require process support to adequately coordinate their complex, distributed work practices. Process modeling and enactment tools have been developed to meet this requirement. The authors discuss the ...
Designing a virtual patient as an interprofessional enactment: lessons learnt from the process
This study is based on observations of the design process of a virtual patient (VP), which aimed to facilitate interprofessional learning. By following the design process of this particular VP, this study aimed to trace how different practices and the ...
Enactment of inter-subjectivity in phenomenological bodily interaction: a conceptual framework
DPPI '11: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and InterfacesHow can design teams constitute human bodily attributions as the locus of productive forces, the site in which an interaction language links up with phenomenological practices of human users? I propose that the salient characteristic of this matter is ...
Comments