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

Manohar Rao

dblp:76/4930 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 1 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Parallel and multicore computing · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Parallel and multicore computing
parallel programming models
0.011990
Implementation machine paradigm for parallel programming · SC 1990
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel programming models
SPMD
0.011990
Implementation machine paradigm for parallel programming · SC 1990
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel programming models
task and data parallelism
0.011990
Implementation machine paradigm for parallel programming · SC 1990
Parallel and multicore computing
multiprocessor system
0.011990
Implementation machine paradigm for parallel programming · SC 1990

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

intermediate layer of abstraction · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 SysML with ARTiSAN Studio
abstract
Summary form only given. Since its adoption in 1997, the unified modeling language (UML) has proved very popular with software engineers and has become the de facto standard as a visual modeling language for software engineers. However, this software focus of UML has discouraged many systems engineers from adopting it in earnest. Those who did adopt UML developed strategies to cope with its shortcomings. A common approach was to model additional systems engineering concepts in other modeling tools. This made it difficult to integrate the different viewpoints and achieve traceability. Fortunately, with the release of UML 2.0 and the ensuing extensions to it in SysML - the soon-to-be adopted systems modeling language - the systems engineering community has a real alternative to systems modeling that provides a more integrated approach to systems and software engineering. Since its inception in 1997, ARTiSAN has endeavored to bridge the gap between systems and software engineering modeling by adding systems engineering extensions to the UML and, as a key member of the SysML initiative, is well poised to support these emerging standards for systems and software modeling. This presentation will provide a brief overview of the major extensions proposed by SysML, and will summarize how ARTiSAN's latest release of its flagship product Studio (version 6.0) takes the lead in supporting these concepts.
Manohar Rao
VL/HCC1
1990 Performance Efficient Mapping of Applications to Parallel and Distributed Architectures
Eyal Zimran, Manohar Rao, Zary Segall
ICPP (2)2
1990 Implementation machine paradigm for parallel programming
abstract
An approach for efficiently mapping parallel applications onto parallel MIMD machine architectures is introduced. The applicability of this approach to uniform memory-access multiprocessors is demonstrated. It is shown that an intermediate layer of abstraction between the application level and the parallel architecture level is conducive not only to a better software productivity but also to performance efficient programs. The intermediate layer consists of a set of commonly used parallel programming paradigms (implementation machines). A mathematical representation and a pragmatic representation are provided for each implementation machine (IM). The user maps the application onto one or a set of IMs and the system implements the IMs efficiently on the underlying parallel machine.>
Manohar Rao, Zary Segall, Dalibor F. Vrsalovic
SC1