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.

James Von Olnhausen

dblp:50/4628 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1997
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4Theory of computation · 2

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
4 papers
Requirements engineering and software design · 59% Program verification · 41%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Embedded and real-time systems · 73% Performance modeling and evaluation · 27%
Computer networks
1 paper
Internet architecture and protocols · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automata and formal languages · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
automated reasoning and model checking
0.011997
Model-Checking of Real-Time Systems: A Telecommunications Application (Experience Report) · ICSE 1997
Requirements engineering and software design › specification
reactive system specification
0.011996
A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems Experience Report · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1996
Requirements engineering and software design › specification
specification methods
0.011996
A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems Experience Report · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1996
Requirements engineering and software design
formal specification
0.011995
A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems: Experience Report · ICSE 1995
Program verification
safety verification
0.011995
Safety Property Verification of ESTEREL Programs and Applications to Telecommunications Software · CAV 1995
Embedded and real-time systems
real-time software
0.011997
Model-Checking of Real-Time Systems: A Telecommunications Application (Experience Report) · ICSE 1997
Embedded and real-time systems
telephone switching systems
0.011997
Model-Checking of Real-Time Systems: A Telecommunications Application (Experience Report) · ICSE 1997
Embedded and real-time systems
reactive systems
0.011995
A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems: Experience Report · ICSE 1995

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

model checking · 0.1safety verification · 0.0probabilistic specification checking · 0.0evaluation criteria · 0.0case study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1997 Model-Checking of Real-Time Systems: A Telecommunications Application (Experience Report)
abstract
We describe the application of model checking tools to analyze a real-time software challenge in the design of Lucent Technologies' 5ESS telephone switching system.We use two tools: COSPAN for checking real-time properties, and TPWB for checking probabilistic specifications.We report on the feedback given by the tools, and based on our experience, discuss the advantages and the limitations of the approach used.
Rajeev Alur, Lalita Jategaonkar Jagadeesan, Joseph J. Kott, James Von Olnhausen
ICSE4
1996 A Formal Approach to Reactive Systems Software: A Telecommunications Application in ESTEREL
Lalita Jategaonkar Jagadeesan, Carlos Puchol, James Von Olnhausen
Formal Methods Syst. Des.3
1996 A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems Experience Report
abstract
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.
Mark A. Ardis, John A. Chaves, Lalita Jategaonkar Jagadeesan, Peter Mataga, Carlos Puchol, Mark G. Staskauskas, James Von Olnhausen
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.7
1995 Safety Property Verification of ESTEREL Programs and Applications to Telecommunications Software
Lalita Jategaonkar Jagadeesan, Carlos Puchol, James Von Olnhausen
CAV3
1995 A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems: Experience Report
abstract
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.
Mark A. Ardis, John A. Chaves, Lalita Jategaonkar Jagadeesan, Peter Mataga, Carlos Puchol, Mark G. Staskauskas, James Von Olnhausen
ICSE7