Algorithmic decomposition formed the basis of the first golden age of software engineering, and object-oriented development (OOD) heralded its second.

This paper proposes a research direction to advance AI which draws inspiration from cognitive theories of human decision making. The premise is that if we gain insights about the causes of some human capabilities that are still lacking in AI (for instance, adaptability, generalizability, common sense, and causal reasoning), we may obtain similar capabilities in an AI system by embedding these causal components. We hope that the high-level description of our vision included in this paper, as well as the several research questions that we propose to consider, can stimulate the AI research community to define, try and evaluate new methodologies, frameworks, and evaluation metrics, in the spirit of achieving a better understanding of both human and machine intelligence.

This paper describes a framework called MaestROBe It is designed to make the robots perform complex tasks with high precision by simple high-level instructions given by natural language or demonstration. To realize this, it handles a hierarchical structure by using the knowledge stored in the forms of ontology and rules for bridging among different levels of instructions. Accordingly, the framework has multiple layers of processing components; perception and actuation control at the low level, symbolic planner and Watson APIs for cognitive capabilities and semantic understanding, and orchestration of these components by a new open source robot middleware called Project Intu at its core. We show how this framework can be used in a complex scenario where multiple actors (human, a communication robot, and an industrial robot) collaborate to perform a common industrial task. Human teaches an assembly task to Pepper (a humanoid robot from SoftBank Robotics) using natural language conversation and demonstration. Our framework helps Pepper perceive the human demonstration and generate a sequence of actions for UR5 (collaborative robot arm from Universal Robots), which ultimately performs the assembly (e.g. insertion) task.

Summary form only given. No matter what future we may envision, it relies on software that has not yet been written. Even now, software-intensive systems have woven themselves into the interstitial spaces of civilization, and we as individuals and as a species have slowly surrendered ourselves to computing. Looking back, we can identify several major and distinct styles whereby we have built such systems. We have come a long way, and even today, we certainly can name a number of best practices for software development that yield systems of quality. However, by no means can we stand still: the nature of the systems we build continues to change, and as they collectively weave themselves into our live, we must attend not only to the technical elements of software development, we must also attend to human needs. In this presentation we will look at the history of software engineering and offer some grand challenges for the future.

In so many ways, software-intensive systems touch the lives of every individual, corporation, institution, nation, and contemporary civilization. Nonetheless, the gap between the technological haves and have-nots is growing and the gap between academia and the industries that create these software-intensive systems continues to be much lamented. I enter this presentation as one firmly planted in the pragmatic creation and evolution of such systems, and yet look outside industry for sources of state-changing innovation. In this talk, I'll examine the current state of software-intensive systems in the world, the forces that fall upon such systems and the people who develop, deploy, and operate them, and the means whereby we can keep the pipeline of innovation open and the academia/industry dialog vibrant. Along the way, I'll cover little-discussed topics including the moral dimension of software, the appreciation of beauty in software, and the privilege and responsibility of being a software developer.

Classical science advances via the dance between quantitative observation and theoretical construction. It has been ten years since the first International Software Architecture Workshop, and since that time there has been a steady increase in the number of people who call themselves "software architect" and a similar growth in the value that organizations place in software architecture. It is a sign of maturity for any given engineering discipline when we can name, study, and apply the patterns relevant to that domain but, unfortunately, no such reference yet exists for software-intensive systems. We've architected and deployed many systems, but have studied their patterns of success and failure only a little; we've explored theoretical frameworks for describing software architectures and processes to build them, but we've done only a modest job in validating them in the real world. In this presentation, I'll summarize the things we know and the things we don’t know (and speculate on the things we don't know we know) about software architecture. I'll then examine an effort to create a handbook of software architecture to help fill this gap between observation and construction.

Software is the fuel of the world's new economy. Software has been used to create new markets, heal the human body, explore distant worlds, and bring individuals into community. Software transcends all political boundaries, consumes few resources in its execution, and permits the creation of new worlds with new laws of physics. At its best, software extends the human experience; at its worse, it can amplify our basest faults.

Patterns and frameworks are two approaches to the development of both new and evolving software systems. An implicit hypothesis is that are reduced by leveraging knowledge previously collected, analyzed, organized, and packaged. Discovery (or getting started costs) include both the costs of understanding the problem to be solved and the cost of understanding the tools, methods, existing software, etc. For large, multi-year development projects in industries such as defense or telecommunications, discovery costs can dominate the overall cost (and risk) of software development.This panel will share its experience and perspectives with the audience with a discussion initiated by the following questions:• Have patterns and frameworks really delivered on their claims for reducing discovery costs? Can current best-practices be characterized as meaningful or marginal (what are the measures)?• What are the discovery cost factors where frameworks and patterns appear to deliver the biggest bang for the buck?• While mature pattern languages and frameworks may reduce the learning curve, they do not, eliminate it. How much of a learning curve is required to develop a sufficient shared context with the authors of a set of patterns or a framework?

In the realm of OO methodologies there are two major schools of thought. Both schools claim to define mechanisms whereby software applications can be created that are reusable, maintainable, and robust. Moreover, both schools claim to use abstraction as a key mechanism for achieving these benefits. At issue is whether or not these two schools are fundamentally different, or just variations on an object-oriented theme.Shlaer and Mellor have dubbed one of these schools Translational. In the translational approach, two models are created. One is an abstract model of the application domain which is devoid of any design dependencies. The other model is an abstract model of the design which is devoid of any application dependencies. These two models are composed automatically to yield the code for the system.The other school - supported by Booch, Rumbaugh, Jacobson, and Martin - views the architecture of a system from several different perspectives of abstraction, e.g. logical, physical. These abstractions typically form a layer; abstractions in the logical sense manifest themselves as individual classes as well as collaborations of classes. There may be one layered model, at different layers of abstraction, or, especially given the Objectory view point, there may be multiple models, with an analysis model that's nearly independent from the design model.The panel will explore:• Is there a seamless transition between analysis and design?• Should there be a single model or should there be two - one for the analysis and one for the design?• If there are two models, how are they bridged?• What, if any, are the differences in process between the two schools?• How does architecture manifest itself!• Is there, in fact, a real difference between the two schools of thought?As a result of this exploration, we hope to answer the question: Is translation a myth or is it a reality?

Article Free Access Share on Patterns: cult to culture? Authors: Steven Fraser BNR/Nortel (Moderator) BNR/Nortel (Moderator)View Profile , Grady Booch Rational RationalView Profile , Frank Buschmann Siemens SiemensView Profile , Jim Coplien AT&T AT&TView Profile , Norm Kerth Elite Systems Elite SystemsView Profile , Ivar Jacobson Objectory ObjectoryView Profile , Mary Beth Rosson Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityView Profile Authors Info & Claims OOPSLA '95: Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applicationsOctober 1995 Pages 231–234https://doi.org/10.1145/217838.217863Online:17 October 1995Publication History 3citation600DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations3Total Downloads600Last 12 Months19Last 6 weeks0 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

article Free Access Share on How do teams shape objects?—How do objects shape teams? Authors: Steven Fraser Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaView Profile , Kent Beck FirstClass Software FirstClass SoftwareView Profile , Grady Booch Rational Booch Rational BoochView Profile , Derek Coleman Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto California Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto CaliforniaView Profile , Jim Coplien AT&T Bell Laboratories AT&T Bell LaboratoriesView Profile , Richard Helm DMR Group., 1200 Mcill College Ave., Montreal. QC H3B 4G7 Canada DMR Group., 1200 Mcill College Ave., Montreal. QC H3B 4G7 CanadaView Profile , Kenny Rubin ParcPlace Systems ParcPlace SystemsView Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGPLAN NoticesVolume 29Issue 10Oct. 1994 pp 468–473https://doi.org/10.1145/191081.191152Online:01 October 1994Publication History 2citation395DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations2Total Downloads395Last 12 Months5Last 6 weeks0 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

article Free Access Share on Methodology standards: help or hindrance? Authors: Grady Booch Rational Software Corporation Rational Software CorporationView Profile , Brian Henderson-Sellers University of Technology, Sydney University of Technology, SydneyView Profile , Ivar Jacobson Objective Systems AB Objective Systems ABView Profile , Steve Mellor Project Technology, Inc. Project Technology, Inc.View Profile , James Rumbaugh GE GEView Profile , Rebecca Wirfs-Brock Digitalk DigitalkView Profile , Chairman: David Monarchi University of Colorado, Boulder University of Colorado, BoulderView Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGPLAN NoticesVolume 29Issue 10Oct. 1994 pp 223–228https://doi.org/10.1145/191081.191115Online:01 October 1994Publication History 5citation0DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations5Total Downloads0Last 12 Months0Last 6 weeks0 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

Article How to get a paper accepted at OOPSLA (panel) Share on Authors: Ralph E. Johnson View Profile , Kent Beck View Profile , Grady Booch View Profile , William Cook View Profile , Richard Gabriel View Profile , Rebecca Wirfs-Brock View Profile Authors Info & Claims OOPSLA '93: Proceedings of the eighth annual conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applicationsOctober 1993 Pages 429–436https://doi.org/10.1145/165854.165934Online:01 October 1993Publication History 5citation1,315DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations5Total Downloads1,315Last 12 Months35Last 6 weeks8 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access

Object-oriented development is a partial-lifecycle software development method in which the decomposition of a system is based upon the concept of an object. This method is fundamentally different from traditional functional approaches to design and serves to help manage the complexity of massive software-intensive systems. The author examines the process of object-oriented development as well as the influences upon this approach from advances in abstraction mechanisms, programming languages, and hardware. The concept of an object is central to object-oriented development and so the properties of an object are discussed. The mapping of object-oriented techniques to Ada using a design case study is considered.

Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Ada is a programming language that embodies and enforces many modern software methodologies. Thus, the introduction of the language gives the opportunity for improvements in software reliability, maintainability, and clarity. Ada also offers some unique educational challenges and opportunities, so this panel will focus on some of the requirements for industrial, graduate, and undergraduate Ada education. In particular, the panel will explore different teaching methodologies, and will share their experiences in teaching the language.