EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aaron G. Cass
dblp:79/351
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 2 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers |
Requirements engineering and software design · 71% Programming languages and type systems · 22% Software testing · 7% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software design process |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Process support to help novices design software faster and better · ASE 2005 |
Programming languages and type systems › domain-specific languages
process modeling language |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter · ICSE 2000 |
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
process programming |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering · ASE 2000 |
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering · ASE 2000 |
Software testing
safety-critical software testing |
0.0 | 1 | 1994 | Testing a Safety-Critical Application · ISSTA 1994 |
Programming languages and type systems › concurrent programming languages
coordination languages |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter · ICSE 2000 |
Requirements engineering and software design
software process |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering · ASE 2000 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
operational semantics · 0.1controlled experiment · 0.1graphical syntax · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | Process support to help novices design software faster and betterabstractIn earlier work we have argued that formal process definitions can be useful in improving our understanding and performance of software development processes. There has, however, been considerable sentiment that formalized processes cannot capture the creative process of software design. This paper describes our experimentation with the hypothesis that both design speed and design quality can be improved through the use of formalized process definitions. Our experimentation supports this hypothesis. Aaron G. Cass, Leon J. Osterweil |
ASE | 1 |
| 2000 | Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreterabstractLittle-JIL, a language for programming coordination in processes is an executable, high-level language with a formal (yet graphical) syntax and rigorously defined operational semantics. The central abstraction in Little-JIL is the “step,” which is the focal point for coordination, providing a scoping mechanism for control, data, and exception flow and for agent and resource assignment. Steps are organized into a static hierarchy, but can have a highly dynamic execution structure including the possibility of recursion and concurrency. Aaron G. Cass, Barbara Lerner, Stanley M. Sutton Jr., Eric K. McCall, Alexander E. Wise, Leon J. Osterweil |
ICSE | 1 |
| 2000 | Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software EngineeringabstractLittle-JIL, a new language for programming the coordination of agents, is an executable, high-level process programming language with a formal (yet graphical) syntax and rigorously defined operational semantics. Little-JIL is based on two main hypotheses. The first is that the specification of coordination control structures is separable from other process programming language issues. Little-JIL provides a rich set of control structures while relying on separate systems for support in areas such as resource, artifact and agenda management. The second hypothesis is that processes can be executed by agents who know how to perform their tasks but can benefit from coordination support. Accordingly, each step in Little-JIl is assigned to an execution agent (human or automated). These agents are responsible for initiating steps and performing the work associated with them. This approach has so far proven effective in allowing us to clearly and concisely express the agent coordination aspects of a wide variety of software, workflow and other processes. Alexander E. Wise, Aaron G. Cass, Barbara Lerner, Eric K. McCall, Leon J. Osterweil, Stanley M. Sutton Jr. |
ASE | 2 |
| 1994 | Testing a Safety-Critical ApplicationabstractNo abstract available. John C. Knight, Aaron G. Cass, Antonio M. Fernández, Kevin G. Wika |
ISSTA | 2 |