Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Julie Waterhouse
dblp:92/3853
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Software 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 |
Software testing · 77% Services computing and microservices · 23% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › protocol testing
conformance checking |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Runtime Monitoring of Web Service Conversations · IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 2009 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
automata transformation · 0.1UML 2.0 sequence diagrams · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Runtime Estimation Using the Case-Based Reasoning Approach for Scheduling in a Grid Environment
Edward Xia, Igor Jurisica, Julie Waterhouse, Valerie Sloan |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2009 | Runtime Monitoring of Web Service ConversationsabstractFor a system of distributed processes, correctness can be ensured by (statically) checking whether their composition satisfies properties of interest. However, Web services are distributed processes that dynamically discover properties of other Web services. Since the overall system may not be available statically and since each business process is supposed to be relatively simple, we propose to use runtime monitoring of conversations between partners as a means of checking behavioral correctness of the entire Web service system. Specifically, we identify a subset of UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams as a property specification language and show that it is sufficiently expressive for capturing safety and liveness properties. By transforming these diagrams to automata, we enable conformance checking of finite execution traces against the specification. We show how our language can be used to specify the Specification Property System (SPS) [1]. We describe an implementation of our approach as part of an industrial system. Finally, we discuss our experience of specifying and monitoring a number of properties from three existing applications. Jocelyn Simmonds, Yuan Gan, Marsha Chechik, Shiva Nejati 0001, Bill O'Farrell, Elena Litani, Julie Waterhouse |
IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. | 7 |