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

Clive Jervis

dblp:01/2287 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—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%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › requirements modeling
scenario-based requirements
0.112005
Detecting and resolving semantic pathologies in UML sequence diagrams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2005
Requirements engineering and software design › software design notation
UML sequence diagrams
0.112005
Detecting and resolving semantic pathologies in UML sequence diagrams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2005
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture
0.012005
Detecting and resolving semantic pathologies in UML sequence diagrams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2005

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

partial order theory · 0.1UML profiling · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 Detecting and resolving semantic pathologies in UML sequence diagrams
abstract
Scenario based requirements specifications are the industry norm for defining communicating systems. These scenarios are often captured in the form of UML/MSC sequence diagrams. Errors are often introduced at this stage of the development process, which are costly to resolve if they are not detected early. This paper is concerned with the automatic detection and resolution of semantic errors that can occur in such scenarios.The paper discusses a semantic interpretation of scenario-based requirements and various types of defects (or pathologies) that can be detected. The paper defines the semantics and defects within a partial order theoretic framework. We introduce a UML 2.0 profile that captures various domain specific communication semantics, which can be used to determine the relevance of detected pathologies when different underlying implementation assumptions are made. The paper also discusses how to automatically resolve pathologies by using this profile to adapt the communication architecture in the requirements model.
Paul Baker, Paul Bristow, Clive Jervis, David J. King, Robert Thomson 0002, Bill Mitchell, Simon Burton 0001
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE3