Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page
Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Amy T. Parra

dblp:21/5252 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 87% Software testing · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › component-based software
COTS selection		 0.012000
Investigating and improving a COTS-based software development · ICSE 2000
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements definition		 0.012000
Investigating and improving a COTS-based software development · ICSE 2000
Software testing
integration testing		 0.012000
Investigating and improving a COTS-based software development · ICSE 2000

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

case study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 COTS-based software development: Processes and open issues
Maurizio Morisio, Carolyn B. Seaman, Victor R. Basili, Amy T. Parra, Steve E. Kraft, Steven E. Condon
 J. Syst. Softw.4
2000 Investigating and improving a COTS-based software development
abstract
The work described in this paper is an investigation of COTS-based software development within a particular NASA environment, with an emphasis on the processes used. Fifteen projects using a COTS-based approach were studied and their actual process was documented. This process is evaluated to identify essential differences in comparison to traditional software development. The main differences, and the activities for which projects require more guidance, are requirements definition and COTS selection, high level design, integration and testing.
Maurizio Morisio, Carolyn B. Seaman, Amy T. Parra, Victor R. Basili, Steve E. Kraft, Steven E. Condon
 ICSE3