Aaron G. Cass

dblp:79/351 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software design process
0.112005
Process support to help novices design software faster and better · ASE 2005
Programming languages and type systems › domain-specific languages
process modeling language
0.012000
Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter · ICSE 2000
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
process programming
0.012000
Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering · ASE 2000
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture
0.012000
Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering · ASE 2000
Software testing
safety-critical software testing
0.011994
Testing a Safety-Critical Application · ISSTA 1994
Programming languages and type systems › concurrent programming languages
coordination languages
0.012000
Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter · ICSE 2000
Requirements engineering and software design
software process
0.012000
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 Process support to help novices design software faster and better
abstract
In 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
ASE1
2000 Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter
abstract
Little-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
ICSE1
2000 Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering
abstract
Little-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.
ASE2
1994 Testing a Safety-Critical Application
abstract
No abstract available.
John C. Knight, Aaron G. Cass, Antonio M. Fernández, Kevin G. Wika
ISSTA2