This paper presents an adoption and adaptation of the Curriculum Guidelines for Graduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering (GSwE2009) proposed by the IEEE-CS and the ACM for the creation of a curriculum for a Master's degree in software engineering at the Universidad de la República (Uruguay). A method for evaluating contents and its application is also presented. This evaluation allows us to know the obtained thematic coverage, effort and balance. It also provides information that enables the detection of numerous opportunities for the improvement in the implementation of the program.

The current ACM and IEEE Computer Society recommended guidelines for graduate software engineering programs (GSwE2009) were created in 2009 by an international group of experts from industry, government and academia. We report here on some of the early experiences using GSwE2009 to create a new curriculum in software assurance and to create and/or improve 4 different academic programs in 3 countries. All of these experiences have been positive, confirming the validity and usefulness of GSwE2009.

This panel will discuss recent trends in graduate software engineering programs, including adoption of GSwE2009, cooperative programs between schools, increasing use of distance education formats, and specialization of programs for industry partners. Panelists will also discuss the evolving relationship of software engineering to other disciplines, such as computer science and systems engineering.

We shall conduct a half-day workshop on needed revisions to Software Engineering 2004: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering (SE 2004). A brief overview of the current guidelines and their revision status will be presented. Workshop attendees will share their experience using the current guidelines and suggest needed changes. We will provide a summary report from the workshop to other CSEE&T attendees at a Birds Of a Feather meeting later during the conference.

This panel will engage participants in a discussion of recent changes in software engineering practice that should be reflected in curriculum guidelines for undergraduate software engineering programs. Current progress in revising the guidelines will be presented, including suggestions to update coverage of agile methods, security and service-oriented computing.

Software Engineering 2004: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering (SE 2004) [1] is one volume in a set of computing curricula adopted and supported by the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society. In order to keep the software engineering guidelines up to date the two professional societies began a review and revision project in early 2011. This special session will present the results of the review, present a first draft of the revision, and provide time for discussion and input from the computing education community.

Nearly every facet of modern society depends heavily on highly complex software systems. The business, energy, transportation, education, communication, government, and defense communities rely on software to function, and software is an intrinsic part of our personal lives. Teaching software assurance and secure coding practices are significant challenges currently facing computer science educators. The Strawman version of the CS2013 curricular volume recognizes this vital need and has included a new knowledge area to specifically address software and information assurance in undergraduate computer science education. Also recognizing the importance of the software assurance discipline for protecting national infrastructures and systems, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified the growing need for skilled practitioners in this area. At the direction of the DHS, the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University initiated the Software Assurance Curriculum Project. Session leaders will share curricular materials from this project and will facilitate active discussion centered on infusing software assurance into introductory computer science courses at two-year and four-year colleges and universities. The latest curricular volume published September 2011 will be distributed at the session and includes a review of related curricula, outcomes and body of knowledge, expected background of target audiences, and outlines of six courses. These curricular materials are also available online at www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/11tr017.cfm.

A software product line is a family of products that share common features to meet the needs of a market area. Systematic processes have been developed to dramatically reduce the cost of a product line. Such product-line engineering processes have proven practical and effective in industrial use, but are not widely understood. The Family-Oriented Abstraction, Specification and Translation (FAST) process has been used successfully at Lucent Technologies in over 25 domains, providing productivity improvements of as much as four to one. In this paper, we show how to use FAST to document precisely the key abstractions in a domain, exploit design patterns in a generic product-line architecture, generate documentation and Java code, and automate testing to reduce costs. The paper is based on a detailed case study covering all aspects from domain analysis through testing. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.

Numerous formal specification methods for reactive systems have been proposed in the literature. Because the significant differences between the methods are hard to determine, choosing the best method for a particular application can be difficult. We have applied several different methods, including Modechart, VFSM, ESTEREL, Basic LOTOS, Z, SDL, and C, to an application problem encountered in the design of software for AT&T's 5ESS telephone switching system. We have developed a set of criteria for evaluating and comparing the different specification methods. We argue that the evaluation of a method must take into account not only academic concerns, but also the maturity of the method, its compatibility with the existing software development process and system execution environment, and its suitability for the chosen application domain.

Numerous formal specification methods for reactive systems have been proposed in the literature.Because the significant differences bet ween the methods are hard to determine, choosing the best method for a particular application can be difficult.We have applied several different methods, including Modechart, VFSM, ESTEREL, Basic LOTOS, Z, SDL and C, to an application problem encountered in the design of software for AT&T's 5ESS o telephone switching system.We have developed a set of criteria for evaluating and comparing the different specification methods.We argue that the evaluation of a method must take into account not only academic concerns, but also the maturity of the method, its compatibility with the existing software development process and system execution environment, and its suitability for the chosen application domain.

The relevance of formal methods for practical software system design is discussed. Prominent representatives of formal approaches present their findings and experience about the use and the usefulness of formal methods. It has been proposed that all programmers would be more productive and produce higher quality products if they would learn two things: predicate calculus; and program correctness (including formal program development). It is argued that the complexity, pervasiveness, and critical nature of modern and future computer systems makes it imperative that such systems be engineered for reliability and maintainability. Formal methods constitute an extremely promising approach to the design of reliable systems. The schedulability aspect of real-time system development is discussed. In general, formal methods should be preferred over other less formal methods since they can provide much better and stronger guarantees on real-time system performance.>

Master of Software Engineering (MSE) programs are relatively new. Starting such a program is expensive in terms of human and capital resources. Some of the costs are: preparation of new course materials, acquisition of sophisticated equipment and software, and maintenance of a low student/faculty ratio. In addition, MSE students and faculty have special needs, such as technical background and familiarity with current industrial practices.