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

Yoko Ampo

dblp:58/5851 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1998
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Embedded and real-time systems · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › formal specification
requirements formalization
0.011998
Experiences Using Lightweight Formal Methods for Requirements Modeling · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1998
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements modeling
0.011998
Experiences Using Lightweight Formal Methods for Requirements Modeling · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1998
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements validation
0.011998
Experiences Using Lightweight Formal Methods for Requirements Modeling · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1998

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

theorem proving · 0.0lightweight formal methods · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1998 Experiences Using Lightweight Formal Methods for Requirements Modeling
abstract
The paper describes three case studies in the lightweight application of formal methods to requirements modeling for spacecraft fault protection systems. The case studies differ from previously reported applications of formal methods in that formal methods were applied very early in the requirements engineering process to validate the evolving requirements. The results were fed back into the projects to improve the informal specifications. For each case study, we describe what methods were applied, how they were applied, how much effort was involved, and what the findings were. In all three cases, formal methods enhanced the existing verification and validation processes by testing key properties of the evolving requirements and helping to identify weaknesses. We conclude that the benefits gained from early modeling of unstable requirements more than outweigh the effort needed to maintain multiple representations.
Steve M. Easterbrook, Robyn R. Lutz, Richard Covington, John Kelly, Yoko Ampo, David Hamilton
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.5