Forum for Academic Software Engineering Volume 3, Number 6, Fri Nov 5 10:14:45 CST 1993 (FASE # 16) Topics: New Ada-related text Re: Request for info on teaching OO Software Engineering is unlawful [several related articles] A------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New Ada-related text From: bsanden@mason1.gmu.edu (BO SANDEN) I am pleased to announce the publication of the following book. (Due to some miscommunication, many booksellers are unaware that it is now available from the publisher.) Bo Sanden, Software Systems Construction with Examples in Ada Prentice Hall 1994; ISBN 0-13-030834-X "This book is primarily intended for readers with practical experience in software construction. It targets graduate or upper-level undergraduate students of software engineering as well as practitioners. The book is about practical and economical construction of software systems. It proposes an approach called Entity-Life Modeling, where the software is patterned as closely as possible after structures found in the problem environment. The goal is a clear and modifiable software solution that is cast in terms of the problem, with a minimum of extra apparatus. Entity-Life Modeling has its roots in the Jackson approach to modeling software control structures on threads of events in the reality, and the object-based approach where software objects are modeled on objects in the reality. The Jackson approach is modified to map directly onto Ada tasks. This is an elegant fit that eliminates some awkward program transformations traditionally associated with the Jackson method. The object-based approach is inherent in the Ada syntax with its packages and provisions for user-defined types. Entity-Life Modeling results in intuitive software designs where the timing concerns are addressed with tasking and other concerns are separated by means of packaging. Ada was chosen a means to express software designs since tasking is an integral part of its syntax. The book is not an Ada text and may require an Ada primer as a complement. The concepts of Entity-Life Modeling are language independent and may be applied to any environment supporting threads (light- weight processes). A wealth of examples are worked from analysis to design in Ada ranging from sequential programs to concurrent applications of varying complexity. They include the remote temperature sensor, buoy and elevator systems and a substantial case study of a flexible manufacturing system (FMS). There are 8 major student projects and 50 end-of-chapter exercises. A solutions manual is available separately from the publisher." Comments are invited to bsanden@gmu.edu A------------------------------------------------------- From: kpierce (Keith Pierce) Subject: Re: Request for info on teaching OO In the last issue, Ron Leach of Howard University asked for information on integrating OO into the undergraduate curriculum. In articles I've read lately, the OO gurus --- Grady Booch, Adele Goldberg, Bertrand Meyer, to name three --- all passionately argue that OO should be taught from the very beginning of the curriculum. They rationalize that the OO paradigm is so powerful for creating higher-quality software products, that there is no good reason for teaching something else first and then forcing students to unlearn it later. I taught a senior-level design course last spring, concentrating on OOD and Smalltalk, and my experience compells me to agree. Whereas many students caught on early to OO, some never could shake the old procedural paradigm. Their projects looked like monolithic C programs, with little objectification; where objects were created, they were delegated no meaningful resposibilities. If we had started from the freshman year these problems would not have appeared, and I could have gone on to teach really deep design concepts in the senior year. There is, however, a matter of pragmatics. If you start in the freshman year, then the entire curriculum is affected; other instructors must modify what they teach, how they teach it, and what projects they assign. Instructors without background in OO may find themselves behind their students; students may display impatience with advanced courses that use outmoded projects and points of view. So we are introducing the concept incrementally. We've started with a senior class and as other instructors become trained in the new concepts, we will migrate them down, eventually to the freshman year. -- Keith Pierce, Professor 327A Heller Hall Department of Computer Science Phone: 218-726-7194 University of Minnesota, Duluth FAX: 218-726-6360 Duluth, MN 55812-2496 email: kpierce@d.umn.edu A------------------------------------------------------- [ED: I picked up the remaining articles from a thread of discussion on internet newsgroups comp.edu and comp.software-eng. U.S. states will inevitably begin certifying software engineers, an action that will certainly affect our curriculum. Apparently some other countries are far ahead of the U.S in licensing software engineers. Why?] From: gk4@austin.ibm.com Subject: Software Engineering is unlawful I have two questions, is there a text book that definitively describes Software Engineering, and is there a standardized test to evaluate a person's Software Engineering knowledge? The reason I'm asking is because the Texas State Board of Registration For Professional Engineers does not recognize Software Engineering as a profession. They do not have a PE test for the discipline, therefore, by their omission it is unlawful to hold the title of Software Engineer. "...only licensed and registered persons shall practice, offer or attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an 'engineer' or in any manner make use of the term 'engineer' as a professional, business or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim or asset..." The Texas Engineering Practice Act Texas State Board of Registration For Professional Engineers Post Office Box 18329 Austin, Texas 78760 512/440-7723 Is Texas correct in saying that Software Engineering is not a practicable engineering discipline? Are there text books and tests that Texas could be using to license Software Engineers? Sincerely, George (gk4) gk4@austin.ibm.com ===================== The opinons expressed are mine. ==================== George Kraft IV (gk4) Contract Software Engineer* (*) Void where prohibited. Keywords: A------------------------------------------------------- From: ssimmons@convex.com (Steve Simmons) Subject: Software Engineering is unlawful Passing the professional engineering exam allows you to put PE at the end of your title. Really, only civil and power engineers are the only people who take this exam. Any engineering that changes its state of the art every 5 years cannot intelligently create an exam. Thank you. Steve Simmons A------------------------------------------------------- From: beidler@guinness.cs.uofs.edu (Jack Beidler) Subject: Re: Software Engineering is unlawful In article , gk4@austin.ibm.com writes: |> |> |> I have two questions, is there a text book that definitively describes |> Software Engineering, and is there a standardized test to evaluate |> a person's Software Engineering knowledge? |> |> The reason I'm asking is because the Texas State Board of Registration |> For Professional Engineers does not recognize Software Engineering as |> a profession. They do not have a PE test for the discipline, therefore, |> by their omission it is unlawful to hold the title of Software Engineer. |> |> "...only licensed and registered persons shall practice, offer or |> attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise |> designated as any kind of an 'engineer' or in any manner make use |> of the term 'engineer' as a professional, business or commercial |> identification, title, name, representation, claim or asset..." |> |> The Texas Engineering Practice Act |> |> Texas State Board of Registration |> For Professional Engineers |> Post Office Box 18329 |> Austin, Texas 78760 |> 512/440-7723 |> |> Is Texas correct in saying that Software Engineering is not a practicable |> engineering discipline? Are there text books and tests that Texas could |> be using to license Software Engineers? If I am not mistaking, in Texas engineering licenses can be obtained only if there is an ABET accreditation for the discipline. No ABET (Accrediting Board for Engr. and Technology) accreditation exists for SE, hence not license. Since SE falls between the ABET accreditation for Computer Engineering and the CSAB accreditation for Computer Science, I guess it will be a long time before you see SE licensing. A------------------------------------------------------- From: wier@merlin.etsu.edu (Bob Wier) Subject: Re: Software Engineering is unlawful (in Texas) In article <23OCT199311373331@cl2.cl.uh.edu>, swen1fbe@cl2.cl.uh.edu (Tim D.) wrote: > > I wonder about the same thing. I know the Texas legislature had to debate > about whether or not to allow a Master's Degree in Software Engineering > at UHCL and I am not sure how it came out. Someone told me they called > it Software Engineering *Science*, but I don't know first hand. > > Does anyone know? > > - Tim D. Some years ago when I was a grad student, TCU in Fort Worth wanted to offer a Masters in Software Engineering. Couldn't do it since you had to have at least one PE in any program with "Engineering" in the title, and SE didn't come into that catagory. So they ended up with with MSDD - a master's in Software Design and Development = Don't know what the current situation is, though... ======== insert usual disclaimers here ============ Bob Wier, East Texas State U., Commerce, Texas wier@merlin.etsu.edu (watch for address change) A------------------------------------------------------- From: richard@plaza.ds.adp.com (Richard Clingman) Subject: Are Computer Engineers Really Engineers? Prove It! I have some friends who started their own small computer consulting business. They call their business OPENsystems ENGINEERING, INC. They have been notified by the Oregon Board of Engineering Examiners to appear at a hearing to show why they should not be fined $1000.00 for using the word "Engineering" in their company name. The Board contends that by using this word in their company name, they "purport" or "imply" that they are licensed professional engineers. Apparently, in Oregon only Board certified Engineers are allowed to use that word in their company name; others are subject to prosecution!!! Well, guess what! This public body does not certify specialists working in the computer field. You could not get board certification as a Computer Software Engineer or a Computer Systems Engineer from this "Engineering" board. My friends are looking for evidence to legitimize the use of the word "Engineer" and it's other forms for specialists working in the computer field. They need to somehow prove to this board that this word should no longer be reserved exclusively for those in traditional engineering fields (such as civil, mechanical, etc.). Keep in mind, this ONLY effects the use of the word IN A COMPANY NAME! They are not asking the board to certify them as engineers; though if the board decided to start doing that, they could certainly qualify. THESE FOLKS NEED SOME HELP! THE HEARING IS NOV. 15th! They would like to know about: - companies in the computer field that have job positions that contain the word "engineer" - colleges that offer degrees and certificates in computer specilizations containing the word "engineering" - any legal actions similar to this related to the use of the word in question - how other states handle this kind of issue - ANYTHING you can think of that might help them prevail over this government resistance-to-change! If you can help, please post to this group, or (even better) contact these folks directly; email: jak@tactix.rain.com OPENsystems ENGINEERING, INC. 15800 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road Suite 200 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 684-9111 voice (503) 624-0774 fax A------------------------------------------------------- From: gandalf@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Juergen Wagner) Subject: Re: Are Computer Engineers Really Engineers? Prove It! Richard Clingman (richard@plaza.ds.adp.com) writes: >... > I have some friends who started their own small computer > consulting business. They call their business OPENsystems > ENGINEERING, INC. > > They have been notified by the Oregon Board of Engineering > Examiners to appear at a hearing to show why they should not > be fined $1000.00 for using the word "Engineering" in their > company name. The Board contends that by using this word in > their company name, they "purport" or "imply" that they are > licensed professional engineers. The distinction between certified engineers and other engineers also exists in other countries. In Germany, everybody is allowed to call him/herself an engineer (Ingenieur) because the term itself is not recognized as to imply a certain profession or qualification (same, e.g., with the term "consultant" in its various combinations). The official certification would be a diploma from a university or similar institution: Dipl.-Ing. The use of Dipl.-Ing. is protected by law and is limited to those who have obtained a respective degree. When I returned to Germany with a Master's Degree in Computer Science from Stanford, I had to apply to a special governmental department for official recognition of this degree as comparable or equivalent to some German degree. And they want $$ (DM, actually) for that. Titles of the same name as those protected in Germany, which have been obtained in a foreign country, have to be officialized through the same procedure - even if they turn out to be equivalent to the respective German degree. The other aspect of this is a distinction between professionals and non-professionals, including non-academic fields (acamedic titles are usually treated in a very restrictive fashion, as outlined above). Professional organizations and institutions may achieve legislation to protect their professional titles. However, one requirement is that these titles are distinct from any commonly used (non-professional) job descriptions. A recent example is the recognition of the paramedic profession in Germany. "Rettungssanitaeter" wasn't legally protected because it wasn't recognized as a profession. The lack of a characterization of this profession, and (consequently) of institutions who provided educational programs adhering to that (uniform) characterization made it impossible to protect the term "Rettungssanitaeter". In 1990 (I believe), the officially recognized profession "Rettungsassistent" was defined and protected. A two-year education with a diploma certifying a certain level of education and practical experience is required for anybody claiming the professional title "Rettungsassistent". > Apparently, in Oregon only Board certified Engineers are > allowed to use that word in their company name; others are > subject to prosecution!!! > > Well, guess what! This public body does not certify > specialists working in the computer field. You could not get > board certification as a Computer Software Engineer or a > Computer Systems Engineer from this "Engineering" board. > As you say, if there is a field-of-work-dependent procedure for each type of "engineer" (otherwise, what's the sense of certifying engineers - what's being certified, if not the professional qualification and proficiency?), and if the computer science type of engineer is not covered by them, one could ask the question whether computer scientists may not call themselves "engineers" (at least not in Oregon), or as what this Oregon Board would suggest certifying them. I don't know the grounds upon which this professional title business is based in the U.S. legislation. In Germany, there has to be an exact characterization of the profession and any subprofessions or specializations, including a specification of the certification, before a title can be legally protected. I would assume that in Oregon there's something similar. In that case, the definition of the term "engineer" in contrast to "professional" or "certified" engineer would have to be questioned. The omniscient Webster dictionary says: 1 en.gi.neer \,en-j-'ni()r\ n (14c) [alter. (influenced by -eer) of earlier enginer, fr. ME, alter. of enginour, fr. MF engigneur, fr. OF engignier to contrive, fr. engin] 1: a member of a military group devoted to engineering work 2 obs: a crafty schemer: PLOTTER 3a: a designer or builder of engines 3b: a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering 3c: a person who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance 4: a person who runs or supervises an engine or an apparatus Clearly, this definition states that the term "Engineer" does not require those carrying out the engineering to be engineers (def 1 and 3a). Definition 3b allows for the certified, trained engineer. en.gi.neer.ing n (1720) 1: the activities or function of an engineer: as 1a: the art of managing engines 1b: calculated manipulation or direction (as of behavior) -- compare GENETIC ENGINEERING 2: the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people in structures, machines, products, systems, and processes -- compare BIOENGINEERING "Engineering" is a commonly used term which may not be generally protectable. The art of managing engines (computers are engines of a special kind) may come close to what OpenSystems Engineering will want to do :-). Certified "engineers" are only a subset of all "engineers". Therefore "engineering" performed by certified engineers logically is a subset of that carried out by all engineers. > My friends are looking for evidence to legitimize the use of > the word "Engineer" and it's other forms for specialists > working in the computer field. They need to somehow prove to > this board that this word should no longer be reserved > exclusively for those in traditional engineering fields (such > as civil, mechanical, etc.). At least in Stanford, Computer Science was under the School of Engineering. Therefore, I would assume, having earned a degree from the School of Engineering (noted on the diploma and signified by the color of the hood), I may be called an engineer. Are there any M.S. or B.S. degrees among those founding the company? If so, you may find a line of reasoning like the "School of Engineering" thing. Second point: that board may be allowed to restrict the use of "engineer". Does that also explicitly pertain to "engineering"? If so, they have to be able either to specify a certification procedure for the computer science type of engineer, or to explain why members of those professions are no engineers (which will be very difficult, given the fact that C.S. is under the School of Engineering at many universities and colleges). Third point: that board is a state institution. Are there any national or international organizations (like ACM and IEEE) who interpret "engineer" in a special way. If so, what if they become members of IEEE which carries the word "engineers" in its title. Natural persons being members of such an organizations should be entitled to officially call themselves "engineers". Oh, an do these laws forbidding unauthorized use of "engineer" and "engineering" pertain to advertizing? Also for out-of-state companies? > Keep in mind, this ONLY effects the use of the word IN A > COMPANY NAME! They are not asking the board to certify them > as engineers; though if the board decided to start doing that, > they could certainly qualify. ...as soon as they define a certification procedure for computer scientists - which they have failed to provide yet (if I understood you correctly). Well, I have never before written a piece of text containing the word "engineer" that often. I hope this is of any help to your friends. I'll keep my fingers crossed on Nov 15. --Juergen Wagner J_Wagner@iao.fhg.de gandalf@csli.stanford.edu A------------------------------------------------------- From: campbellsm@lish.logica.com (Peter Campbell Smith) Subject: Re: Are Computer Engineers Really Engineers? Prove It! In article <1993Oct29.225834.14157@plaza.ds.adp.com>, richard@plaza.ds.adp.com (Richard Clingman) wrote: >[...] > > My friends are looking for evidence to legitimize the use of > the word "Engineer" and it's other forms for specialists > working in the computer field. They need to somehow prove to > this board that this word should no longer be reserved > exclusively for those in traditional engineering fields (such > as civil, mechanical, etc.). > [...] In the UK software engineers who are members of the professional body (the British Computer Society) are entitled to register as and be known as Chartered Engineers, with exactly the same status as civil, mechanical, electrical etc engineers. You might also cite the IEEE Computer Society as an example of how a US professional engineering organization recognises software as forming part of its remit. You might like to contact them: I rather think they would be interested in the case and might offer some of the sort of help you are after. They are at 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, PO Box 3014, Los Alamitos, CA 90720: fax (714) 821-4010. There must be dozens of books around with 'sofware engineering ' in their titles, such as Barry Boehm's seminal work 'Software Engineering Economics'. Presumably they are sold in Oregon? Wish your friends the best of luck and please report the outcome. _________________________________________________________ Peter Campbell Smith, Logica plc tel +44 71 637 9111 campbellsm@lish.logica.com fax +44 71 388 8848 A------------------------------------------------------- From: coop@panix.com (Robert Cooper) Subject: Re: Are Computer Engineers Really Engineers? Prove It! >>Richard Clingman (richard@plaza.ds.adp.com) writes: >>>... >>> I have some friends who started their own small computer >>> consulting business. They call their business OPENsystems >>> ENGINEERING, INC. >>> >>> They have been notified by the Oregon Board of Engineering >>> Examiners to appear at a hearing to show why they should not >>> be fined $1000.00 for using the word "Engineering" in their >>> company name. The Board contends that by using this word in >>> their company name, they "purport" or "imply" that they are >>> licensed professional engineers. >> In New York, Engineer (and Architect - which I am) are restricted titles. The state has licensed us for health and safety reasons. We have proven to the state by passing a test that we understand the how to design structures that contain people, that these structures will be safe to use and that we as professionals understand our "responabilities" to society. Here in NYC, either a licensed architect OR a professional engineer can "seal" and submit building plans to the city for approval. While I agree that computer engineers/electrical engineers are real engineers, the state in its wisdom, has decided that the only engineers it cares about are the one that design physical structures that people can enter/use. -- Robert Cooper Brooklyn, NY | "We don't know who discovered water, but coop@panix.com | we're pretty sure it wasn't a fish..." 212 309-9600 (Work) | Attributed to Marshall McLuhan E------------------------------------------------------------------- FASE V3 N6 Send newsletter articles to fase-submit@d.umn.edu Send requests to add, delete, or modify a subscription to fase-request@d.umn.edu Send problem reports, returned mail, or other correspondence about this newsletter to fase-owner@d.umn.edu or kpierce@d.umn.edu Keith Pierce, Editor Laurie Werth, Advisory Committee Department of Computer Science Dept. of Computer Science University of Minnesota, Duluth Taylor Hall 2.124 Duluth, MN 55812-2496 University of Texas at Austin Telephone: (218) 726-7194 Austin, Texas 78712 Fax: (218) 726-6360 Telephone: (512) 471-9535 Email: kpierce@d.umn.edu Fax: (512)471-8885 Email: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu