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

Michael J. Freiling

dblp:10/2168 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1996
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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%
Artificial intelligence
4 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 84% Question answering and dialogue systems · 16%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements elicitation
0.011996
Change Cases: Use Cases that Identify Future Requirements · OOPSLA 1996
Requirements engineering and software design
use cases
0.011996
Change Cases: Use Cases that Identify Future Requirements · OOPSLA 1996
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
ontology
0.021987
Ontological Analysis: An Ongoing Experiment · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1987
Knowledge Level Engineering Ontological Analysis · AAAI 1986
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge acquisition
0.011988
ASTEK: A Multi-Paradigm Knowledge Acquisition Tool for Complex Structured Knowledge · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1988
Requirements engineering and software design › software design principles
design for change
0.011996
Change Cases: Use Cases that Identify Future Requirements · OOPSLA 1996
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge level analysis
0.011986
Knowledge Level Engineering Ontological Analysis · AAAI 1986
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
natural language interface
0.011985
An Eclectic Approach to Building Natural Languages Interfaces · ACL 1985
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
expert systems
0.011985
An Eclectic Approach to Building Natural Languages Interfaces · ACL 1985

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

use case analysis · 0.0traceability · 0.0ontological analysis · 0.0semantic grammar · 0.0lexical-functional grammar · 0.0incremental parsing · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1996 Change Cases: Use Cases that Identify Future Requirements
abstract
Evolution of software systems is prompted by all sorts of changes. This paper demonstrates how the use case, a well known construct in object-oriented analysis, is adapted to form the change case, to identify and articulate anticipated system changes. A change case provides the ability to identify and incorporate expected future change into a design to enhance the long-term robustness of that design. In this paper, we define change cases and demonstrate how change cases are captured by the analyst. We present examples to illustrate how change cases can influence present system design and point the way toward designs that more easily accommodate expected future changes. Change cases can be effectively employed in the context of any methodology that supports use cases and traceability links.
Earl F. Ecklund Jr., Lois M. L. Delcambre, Michael J. Freiling
OOPSLA3
1988 ASTEK: A Multi-Paradigm Knowledge Acquisition Tool for Complex Structured Knowledge
Chris Jacobson, Michael J. Freiling
Int. J. Man Mach. Stud.2
1987 Ontological Analysis: An Ongoing Experiment
James H. Alexander, Michael J. Freiling, Sheryl Shulman, Steven Rehfuss, Steven Messick
Int. J. Man Mach. Stud.2
1986 Knowledge Level Engineering Ontological Analysis
James H. Alexander, Michael J. Freiling, Sheryl Shulman, Jeffery Staley, Steven Rehfuss, Steven Messick
AAAI2
1985 An Eclectic Approach to Building Natural Languages Interfaces
abstract
INKA is a natural language interface to facilitate knowledge acquisition during expert system development for electronic instrument trouble-shooting. The expert system design methodology develops a domain definition, called GLIB, in the form of a semantic grammar. This grammar format enables GLIB to be used with the INGLISH interface, which constrains users to create statements within a subset of English. Incremental parsing in INGLISH allows immediate remedial information to be generated if a user deviates from the sublanguage. Sentences are translated into production rules using the methodology of lexical-functional grammar. The system is written in Smalltalk and, in INKA, produces rules for a Prolog inference engine.
Brian Phillips, Michael J. Freiling, James H. Alexander, Steven Messick, Steven Rehfuss, Sheldon Nicholl
ACL2
1984 Simplifying Deterministic Parsing
abstract
This paper presents a model for deterministic parsing which was designed to simplify the task of writing and understanding a deterministic grammar. While retaining structures and operations similar to those of Marcus' PARSIFAL parser [Marcus 80] the grammar language incorporates the following changes. (1) The use of productions operating in parallel has essentially been eliminated and instead the productions are organized into sequences. Not only does this improve the understandability of the grammar, it is felt that this organization corresponds more closely to the task of performing the sequence of buffer transformations and attachments required to parse the most common constituent types. (2) A general method for interfacing between the parser and a semantic representation system is introduced. This interface is independent of the particular semantic representation used and hides all details of the semantic processing from the grammar writer. (3) The interface also provides a general method for dealing with syntactic ambiguities which arise from the attachment of optional modifiers such as prepositional phrases. This frees the grammar writer from determining each point at which such ambiguities can occur.
Alan W. Carter, Michael J. Freiling
COLING2