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.
EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert

Margaret Lyell

dblp:67/3286 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—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%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Multi-agent systems · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software architecture › component-based software engineering
component frameworks		 0.012003
Comparison of Two Component Frameworks: The FIPA-Compliant Multi-Agent System and The Web-Centric J2EE Platform · ICSE 2003
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture		 0.012003
Comparison of Two Component Frameworks: The FIPA-Compliant Multi-Agent System and The Web-Centric J2EE Platform · ICSE 2003

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

framework comparison · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Comparison of Two Component Frameworks: The FIPA-Compliant Multi-Agent System and The Web-Centric J2EE Platform
abstract
This work compares and contrasts two component frameworks: (1) the web-centric Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) framework and (2) the HPA-compliant multi-agent system (MAS). FIPA, the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, provides specifications for agents and agent platforms. Both frameworks are component frameworks; servlets and Enterprise Java Beans (EJBs) in the case of J2EE and software agents in the case of MAS. Both frameworks are specification based. Both frameworks mandate platform responsibilities towards their respective component(s). We develop a framework with which to structure the comparison of the component frameworks. We apply this comparison structure in the context of a 'Data Access' scenario to application development in the respective component frameworks. Furthermore, we have prototyped this scenario in each of the two component frameworks. We conclude with a discussion of the benefits, drawbacks, and issues of developing new applications in each of the component frameworks.
Michelle Casagni, Margaret Lyell
 ICSE2