Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David A. Gustafson
dblp:92/3390
· DBLP profile ↗
11ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
0009-0008-1869-8407ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 9 · 2 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 5 · 2 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author
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 |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering
software metrics |
0.0 | 1 | 1993 | Software Measure Specification · SIGSOFT FSE 1993 |
Empirical software engineering › software metrics
measurement theory |
0.0 | 1 | 1993 | Software Measure Specification · SIGSOFT FSE 1993 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
model-order-mapping · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Object-oriented Testing beyond Statement Coverage
Pranshu Gupta, David A. Gustafson |
CAINE | 2 |
| 2003 | Taxonomy of cooperative robotic systemsabstractThe use of multiple robots to accomplish tasks has been common for many years. The term, cooperative, is used to designate the nature of the interactions among a team of robots. However, there are many differences in how these robots interact. Some groups of robots appear, on the surface, to cooperate but are not actually aware of the other robots. Other groups share goals and objectives. Our research investigated a diverse collection of multiple-robot systems. This paper highlights eight examples. The variations of interaction that we found were used to create a robotic-interaction taxonomy. Each robotic team is measured against three dimensions for placement into the taxonomy. Terminology for different types of cooperation is suggested. David A. Gustafson, Eric T. Matson |
SMC | 1 |
| 1993 | Software Measure SpecificationabstractThis paper introduces the model-order-mapping (MOM) approach for specifying software/document measures. A MOM specification requires that the important attributes of the document be identified, a model that captures the attributes be chosen, and a mapping from the document to the model be specified. A partial ordering on the model must be developed as well as an order-preserving mapping from the model to an answer set. The relationship of the approach to measurement theory is shown. Validation of the MOM specification is presented.Properties of software measures that are guaranteed by a validated MOM specification and those that can be proved from a validated specification are described. David A. Gustafson, Joo T. Tan, Perla Weaver |
SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |
| 1992 | A software re-engineering process modelabstractA descriptive process model of software re-engineering is presented. The overall structure of the process model is defined by the re-engineering approach. Three re-engineering approaches are described: lump sum, incremental, and evolutionary. The focus is on the breadth of possible tasks.> Eric J. Byrne, David A. Gustafson |
COMPSAC | 2 |
| 1992 | A factor analysis of software complexity measures
Ramón A. Mata-Toledo, David A. Gustafson |
J. Syst. Softw. | 2 |
| 1991 | Stochastic models for software science
Sallie Keller-McNulty, Mark S. McNulty, David A. Gustafson |
J. Syst. Softw. | 3 |
| 1990 | Using the software process model to analyze a software projectabstractAttention is given to the software process model (SPM), which was introduced by A.L. Baker et al. (1987). The SPM models software development by modeling the evolution of the full set of documents produced in software development. The authors show the usefulness of the SPM as a management tool by applying it to a software project. Since the SPM shows patterns of the software product development in greater detail than the current tools available, it provides management with a more effective means of visualizing and controlling software projects. The SPM has the capability to alert management to problems during the development process. This was illustrated when the SPM indicated a problem during the design phase. The problem was made known by the pattern generated by the continuous changes to design specifications when initial code was completed. It was shown that the SPM can be used to ensure consistencies between documents. By plotting changes in documents, both developers and managers are alerted as to whether or not a change is incorporated in other documents.> I. Sue Ranft, David A. Gustafson |
COMPSAC | 2 |
| 1990 | A philosophy for software measurement
Albert L. Baker, James M. Bieman, Norman E. Fenton, David A. Gustafson, Austin Melton, Robin W. Whitty |
J. Syst. Softw. | 4 |
| 1988 | The software process modelabstractThe authors define a software process model (SPM). The SPM is a model of evolution of the full set of documents produced in a software project. It is a general model for software development using any development approach, providing a framework for measuring, analyzing, and understanding the software development process. The authors use the model to characterize formally research in software measures and metrics. Data obtained from two software projects are presented in the SPM format.> David A. Gustafson, Austin Melton, Ying-Chi Chen, Albert L. Baker, James M. Bieman |
COMPSAC | 1 |
| 1988 | Classifying software maintenanceabstractA revision is presented of E.B. Swanson's classification scheme for software maintenance (1976). The proposed classification system can be objectively determined from the changes that occur between versions of the software. The system was developed by analyzing the changes that occur between different versions of COBOL programs that were produced in commercial environments.> Ie-Hong Lin, David A. Gustafson |
ICSM | 2 |
| 1988 | A standard representation of imperative language programs for data collection and software measures specification
James M. Bieman, Albert L. Baker, Paul N. Clites, David A. Gustafson, Austin Melton |
J. Syst. Softw. | 4 |