The Experts below are selected from a list of 75 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Victor Yodaiken - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • an Informal Method
    arXiv: Formal Languages and Automata Theory, 2016
    Co-Authors: Victor Yodaiken
    Abstract:

    A Method for specifying the behavior and architecture of discrete state systems such as digital electronic devices and software. The Method draws on state machine theory, automata products, and recursive functions and is ordinary working mathematics, not involving formal Methods or any foundational or meta-mathematical techniques. Systems in which there are levels of components that may operate in parallel or concurrently are specified in terms of function composition. Illustrative examples include real-time systems, distributed consensus, a Java producer/consumer solution, and digital circuits.

L Hatton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • what is a formal Method and what is an Informal Method
    Proceedings of COMPASS '97: 12th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance, 1997
    Co-Authors: L Hatton
    Abstract:

    This position paper traces a very personal view of formal Methods in the period 1982-1997. The author describes his own experiences in formal Methods all the way from outright belief in the power of mathematics in the early 1980s, to a measurement-tempered and rather cautious optimism in the late 1990s.

Juha-pekka Tolvanen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method Rationale
    Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2004
    Co-Authors: Matti Rossi, Balasubramaniam Ramesh, Kalle Lyytinen, Juha-pekka Tolvanen
    Abstract:

    This paper explores how to integrate formal meta-models with an Informal Method rationale to support evolutionary (continuous) Method development. While the former provides an exact and computer-executable specification of a Method, the latter enables concurrent learning, expansion, and refinement of Method use (instances of metamodels) and meta-models (evolution of Method specifications). We explain the need for Method rationale by observing the criticality of evolving Method knowledge in helping software organizations to learn, as well as by the recurrent failure to introduce rigid and stable Methods. Like a design rationale, a Method rationale establishes a systematic and organized trace of Method evolution. Method rationale is located at two levels of typeinstance hierarchy depending on its type of use and the scope of the changes traced. A Method construction rationale garners a history of Method knowledge evolution as part of the Method engineering process, which designs and adapts the Method to a given

T Van Gelderen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the co discovery Method an Informal Method for iteratively designing consumer products
    IPO Annual Progress Report, 1993
    Co-Authors: J A M Kemp, T Van Gelderen
    Abstract:

    Efficiency and effectiveness are frequently used as measures for what is called the usability of a product. For many consumer products it is not solely this that renders a product successful. Many users of domestic or leisure products are not really interested in efficiently and effectively executing some well-defined task(s). Other values such as hedonic or emotional benefits are perceived in those cases to be more important than the utilitarian benefits for the appreciation of a product. The relative importance of these benefits changes with time. This 'usability life-cycle' is what we call the Usability Continuum, showing this gradual shift of requirements. Three different phases can be distinguished: First Impressions, Initial Use and Habitual Use. Traditional, formal usability evaluation mainly focuses on the last of these, while our Co-Discovery Method tries to explore the first two phases in an Informal, natural setting. This article describes the backgrounds and procedure of the Co-Discovery Method together with a field study we did in Nuremberg, and it is shown how this procedure can be carried out and utilized.

Matti Rossi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method Rationale
    Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2004
    Co-Authors: Matti Rossi, Balasubramaniam Ramesh, Kalle Lyytinen, Juha-pekka Tolvanen
    Abstract:

    This paper explores how to integrate formal meta-models with an Informal Method rationale to support evolutionary (continuous) Method development. While the former provides an exact and computer-executable specification of a Method, the latter enables concurrent learning, expansion, and refinement of Method use (instances of metamodels) and meta-models (evolution of Method specifications). We explain the need for Method rationale by observing the criticality of evolving Method knowledge in helping software organizations to learn, as well as by the recurrent failure to introduce rigid and stable Methods. Like a design rationale, a Method rationale establishes a systematic and organized trace of Method evolution. Method rationale is located at two levels of typeinstance hierarchy depending on its type of use and the scope of the changes traced. A Method construction rationale garners a history of Method knowledge evolution as part of the Method engineering process, which designs and adapts the Method to a given