Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lisandra V. Manzoni
dblp:91/1117
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as 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 · 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Requirements engineering and software design · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Requirements engineering and software design
software process |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Identifying Extensions Required by RUP (Rational Unified Process) to Comply with CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Levels 2 and 3 · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003 |
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process assessment |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Identifying Extensions Required by RUP (Rational Unified Process) to Comply with CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Levels 2 and 3 · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
process assessment · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | Identifying Extensions Required by RUP (Rational Unified Process) to Comply with CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Levels 2 and 3abstractThis paper describes an assessment of the rational unified process (RUP) based on the capability maturity model (CMM). For each key practice (KP) identified in each key process area (KPA) of CMM levels 2 and 3, the Rational Unified Process was assessed to determine whether it satisfied the KP or not. For each KPA, the percentage of the key practices supported was calculated, and the results were tabulated. The report includes considerations about the coverage of each key process area, describing the highlights of the RUP regarding its support for CMM levels 2 and 3, and suggests where an organization using it will need to complement it to conform to CMM. The assessment resulted in the elaboration of proposals to enhance the RUP in order to satisfy the key process areas of CMM. Some of these are briefly described in this article. Lisandra V. Manzoni, R. Tom Price |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 1 |