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

Felicia James

dblp:99/5453 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2006
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 2

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
2 papers
Electronic design automation · 80% Integrated circuit design · 20%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Integrated circuit design
analog and mixed-signal circuits
0.022006
How will the fabless model survive? · DAC 2006
Analog intellectual property: now? Or never? · DAC 2002
Electronic design automation › design methodology
design flows and tools
0.012006
How will the fabless model survive? · DAC 2006
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2006 How will the fabless model survive?
abstract
The fabless model was traditionally enabled through clean interfaces - both in technical and business terms - between foundries and fabless semiconductor companies. However, with advanced geometry and analog/mixed-signal process nodes, the technical challenges have been greatly magnified, so that successful semiconductor design requires intimate co-optimization of design and manufacturing, infringing upon those clean interfaces. The panel presents views to these challenges and specifically how companies are planning to address them.
Thomas Hartung, Jim Kupec, Ana Hunter, Brad Paulsen, Felicia James, Nick Yu
DAC5
2002 Analog intellectual property: now? Or never?
abstract
There is considerable controversy as to whether or not the trade in analog intellectual properties (IP) will ever represent a viable business opportunity. One school of thought suggests that analog design will always be too specialized to constitute a major market; another school of thought says this will be big business if certain nagging technical problems are solved. While the demand for analog interface components is high, the ability of IP creators to render it in a tradable format is limited. And the ability of digital design teams to successfully utilize analog IPs - without a considerable amount of handholding - is similarly limited. EDA tools here are looked upon as both culpable and offering the best hopes for the future.This panel of experts - representing analog designers, analog EDA tool providers, silicon foundries and analog IP vendors - bring their own points of view on some of the business and technology issues which need to be resolved to provide the context for analog IP development and trade. Among the open questions:
Mike Brunoli, Masao Hotta, Felicia James, Rudy Koch, Roy McGuffin, Andrew J. Moore
DAC3