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

Tim Hopes

dblp:27/3945 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2001
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Electronic design automation · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
hardware verification
0.012001
Panel: Your Core - My Problem? Integration and Verification of IP · DAC 2001
Electronic design automation › design management
design reuse
0.012001
Panel: Your Core - My Problem? Integration and Verification of IP · DAC 2001
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2001 Panel: Your Core - My Problem? Integration and Verification of IP
abstract
As the popularity of reusing existing designs--or Intellectual Property (IP)--continues to grow, design challenges escalate. The most time-consuming and critical part of IP design and reuse is verifying that it will work as it was designed to and as the user intends. Designers are pushing the limits of IP for new, distinctive and innovative applications. With this innovation come problems that need creative solutions. Product verification, for example, will become more and more important in ensuring the correctness of the design. Over the years, various solutions have come on the market, all seemingly useful, but none reducing the time or manpower it takes to verify the design. With designs becoming increasingly more complex with each new project and verification consuming up to 70 percent of a design cycle, something must be done to alleviate the bottleneck.
Gabe Moretti, Tim Hopes, Ramesh Narayanaswamy, Nanette Collins, Dave Kelf, Janick Bergeron, Ashish Dixit, Peter Flake
DAC2