Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education Volume 8 Number 01 - January 15, 1998 662 subscribers Note: If you have problems with the format of this document, try http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase/v8n01.txt +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Table of Contents Letter from the Academic Editor This month's topic: SEE&T Predictions for 1998 Next Month's Topic: The Personal Software Process in Education and Training Upcoming Topics Features Training Web Site News Items Texas State Board of Professional Engineers: An Update IEEE TCSE Software Process Newsletter #11 Available Call for Nominations: Stevens Lecture on Software Development Methods Calls for Participation Fifth International Workshop on Software Engineering Education (IWSEE 5): second posting Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society (JBCS) Conference Announcements The 11th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T 98): Additional Posting CSEE&T Software Education 2000 Workshop: An Update REFSQ '98 Feedback on Draft Software Engineering Definition Contact and General Information about FASE +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Don Bagert (bagert@ttu.edu) Letter from the Academic Editor I hope that the new year has started out well for you. This month, I'd like to talk about a few ongoing issues concerning the dsitribution of FASE. The first has to do with the format in which you receive each issue. I have tried to use the simplest format possible i.e. ASCII format. Some of these attempts have been more successful than others. If you have problems with the format of this of any subsequent issue of FASE that you receive, please let me know. If you do get emailed an issue that is difficult for you to read, another option is to use the FASE web page, since an ASCII file with the issue contents is always placed there; that file can of course either be read using your web browser, or copied to hard drive. A related issue concerns having FASE also published in HTML format. As some of you may remember, the last few issues of FASE under Keith Pierce were published in both ASCII and hypertext format. The reason why this has not been done since I took over as co-editor is simply one of lack of time. Since I have only had time to create each issue in one format, and since I know that the ASCII format (supposedly) can be viewed by all of the over 660 people in the 40+ countries that read FASE, that's the format that I've used. However, if there is enough of a desire to have each issues in both ASCII and in HTML, we will somehow find the time and resources to do so. Please let me know if you have much of a preference concerning the format in which you receive FASE. Thanks! A final issue, also related, concerns the size of each issue. Several recent issues have been over thirty pages. This makes the the issue harder to go through. Also, subscribers have reported that, for some mail systems, the message can be two large to forward, or is broken up into two messages by the mail systems. There are a few possible solutions. One is to further limit the length of each issue that I already do. A second is to break the issue into two parts if reaches a particular size, and send each part separately. (I am on a subscriber list for a newletter that uses this format.) Or, FASE could be published twice a month instead of once. (For obvious reasons, this is not an option that I favor =) Of course, if each issue was also available in HTML format, the readability problem would be solved for some people. Please send me your ideas and comments. The FASE editorial board realizes that this publication can't be successful without the support and satisfaction of you, our subscribers. Thanks, Don +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) This month's topic: Software Engineering Education & Training Predictions for 1998. Last month, I asked two questions for you, the FASE readership: 1. What do you forsee for the software engineering education and training fields in 1998? 2. What are your "New Year's Resolutions" for your personal involvement for software engineering education and training for 1998? (Or, to put it in another way for those cultures that don't have the tradition of New Year's resolutions, "What would you like to do in software engineering education and training in 1998 that you were not able to this past year?" Your responses are below. Thanks to everyone that participated! ####################################################################### From: Peter Knoke (ffpjk@aurora.alaska.edu) Some Forecasts for Software Engineering 9 jan 98 Pete Knoke University of Alaska Fairbanks WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS 1> Software Engineering will exist as a formally recognized profession in the US -------------------------------------------------------------------- It will be established as a profession like Electrical Engineering, Systems Engineering, and Chemical Engineering (complete with Body Of Knowledge, Code of Ethics, etc.) Graduates of an increasing number of SE programs will be known officially as SE's. Others will legally call themselves SE's because of grandfathering provisions. Some will do SE-like functions, but will prefer to call themselves something else. 2> Mechanisms for the formal licensing of Software Engineers will exist in the US ---------------------------------------------------------------- Some Software Engineers will be licensed in the US by States, but most SE's will not be licensed. The situation will be similar to that of Electrical Engineers in the US today, where relatively few EE's are licensed because licensing is not required by most employers Of EE's. WITHIN THE NEXT THREE YEARS 3> Software-related legal issues and doctrines will be better understood than they are today -------------------- Because there will soon exist more people able to effectively address them. Software law has progressed some in recent years, and there is an increasing number of lawyers specializing in "technology law". Progress has been somewhat uneven in the field of intellectual property law, as shown by such cases as the Lotus "look and feel" cases. Other areas of software law include contract law and negligence. Recently Congress' Communications Decency was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Anti-trust law is now software-associated (US Justice Dept vs. Microsoft). Problems in this field are that law makers, lawyers and judges now have difficulty creating and/or interpreting laws in the software area because of a lack of understanding of the technology. On the other hand, few software experts are willing and able to address these same legal issues. However, there is an increasing number of people able to understand both sides, for example Richard Stern who publishes regularly in IEEE Micro (his latest article in the November/December 1997 issue is entitled "US vs. Microsoft (again)- The browser war" is excellent). 4> Distance education will have a much bigger impact on SE education than it has today ----------------- This will be both within the US and internationally. Of course, distance education will have a much bigger impact on education in general, but SE education is particularly suitable for DE. International distance education will face an extra tough set of problems, but if the European Union and the Euro can be made to work well then maybe international DE can be made to work also. 5> SE standards will have a significantly bigger role in SE education than at present ------------------------------------------------------------------- There now exist collections of SE Standards (e.g., the 1993 and subsequent IEEE collection) of which many software practitioners are unaware, and of which some are aware but either uninterested or actually opposed. However, language standardization efforts (e.g., C++ and Java with its "write once run anyware" goal), Internet protocol issues (e.g. Ipv4 and Ipv6), cryptography issues, and reuse issues are forcing many software practitioners to recognize the importance of and necessity for standardization. Certain software legal issues may do the same (e.g., in connection with negligence doctrines). A new book ("Guide to Software Engineering Standards and Specifications", Leonard Tripp and Stan Magee, Artech Computer science Library, 1997, $70) may help with usability and affordability in this area. The standards effort is international. The fourth International Software Engineering Standards Symposium will be held in Curitaba, Brazil the week of May 17-21, 1999. For 1998, I'm trying to investigate Java more closely. I'd like to learn to separate the hype from the substance, and determine Java's likely impact on Software Engineering. ####################################################################### From: Katsuhiko Hirai (katsu@yok.mse.mei.co.jp) 12 January, 1998 I have prepared my information of our educational consideration in this year as follows: 1. What is my forcast for the software engineering education and training in our company? First of all, I have to introduce myself and our company. I am a manager of education department in the personal division of our company, and I am a member of committiee in the Central Academy of the Information Technology for the Japanese government, as an industrial advisor. I am a member of IEEE-CS. The business of our company is software development procedures. I have to design the whole educational structure into our training program. I have already completed the entry structure from the first year to the seventh year for our employee. I am planning a new one for the middle age around 10-20 years experienced employee, with the technical and management area. 2. What I would like to do in software engineering education and training in 1998 that I was not able to this past year? We are going to accept 87 freshmen as software engineer students. However, in previous years, we used to get around 50 freshmen. So I have to make a plan to teach them completely under less organized coaching staffs. From my policy of education, only one coach had better teach a single class. The point is how organize 87 trainees into a single class during the 4 month education period, and how to make it a successful result for 87 freshmen. Our training is based on the project style education in which we are going to make software packages for our company business, so we try to get the actual engineering ability, not only the knowledge of the software development procedure. Katsuhiko Hirai Japanese industrial educator for software engineering education e-mail: katsu@yok.mse.mei.co.jp ####################################################################### From: Kathy Beckman (kathy.beckman@cdsi.com) IMHO... 1. What do you forsee for the software engineering education and training fields in 1998? A. Increased pressure to produce more software engineers, more software specialists, more software support technicians, more programmers...anyone that can spell software. Reason: U.S. shortage of information technology workers, currently with 10% of available jobs going unfilled and getting worse. Result: heavy demand, and possible U.S. government money, for recruiting college students for majors/minors/certificates/interdisciplinary degrees in software engineering and training/retraining workforce to go into the software field. B. More university/corporate collaborations to address the skills shortage. 2. What are your "New Year's Resolutions" for your personal involvement for software engineering education and training for 1998? A. Pilot distance learning delivery of our classroom-based Software Process Management training curriculum. B. Become an "exchange student." Spend a semester at a university where I both took course(s) and taught course(s) in software quality or software process. ####################################################################### From: Phillip Reid (preid@c17m.mdc.com) 1. What do you forsee for the software engineering education and training fields in 1998? More tele-video live conferencing between many satellite classroom locations, and more internet utilization in conjunction with in- classroom live contact time courses. More partnerships established between corporations and educational institutions. More courses taught at the job site (more commuting instructors instead of commuting students). More training center labs (with networked computing stations at each desk) set-up at businesses/corporations to better facilitate commuting instructors coming to the work place and executing software engineering education. More "Office of Lifelong Learning" type organizations set-up at businesses/corporations to help encourage, coordinate and track employee education with the local educational institutions -- in support of cost-effective solutions to common learning needs. 2. What are your "New Year's Resolutions" for your personal involvement for software engineering education and training for 1998? In addition to in-classroom training time, keep up better in my professional journal reading and reading of in-field books. ####################################################################### From: Bob Braslau (Bob_Braslau@qmail4.nba.TRW.COM) Bob Braslau, Training Manager for TRW/ Los Angeles,believes that the major emphasis for 1998 will be on applyiing the emerging distance learning technology, to provide training over a geographically distributed office site network, and to convert existing training course materials and teaching techniques into Computer based training, which can be accessed via the internet, and taken at the student's convenience or just-in-time for their needs. The course topics will emphasize the object oriented technology, and the component-based development using commercial products. ####################################################################### From: Don Bagert (bagert@ttu.edu) What I forsee for the software engineering education and training fields in 1998? 1. Texas will become the first state in the U.S. to license software engineers as registered professional engineers. 2. ABET will approve guidelines developed by IEEE for accreditation of software engineering at the advanced (Master's) level, starting in the 1999-2000 academic year. 3. The education of software professionals across disciplines will gain more visibility as an important issue in the computing field. Among the venues that will facilitate this discussion in 1998 is the CSEE&T Software Education 2000 workshop in February [which is discused elsewhere in this issue], and the Guidelines for Software Education, which will encompass the software curriculum component in all computing-related disciplines, which will be released by the Working Group for Software Engineering Education and Training in early 1998. 4. I think that software engineering training issues will see greater changes in upcoming years, as states start to license software engineers. What are your "New Year's Resolutions" for your personal involvement for software engineering education and training for 1998? 1. Continue to help with the Texas licensing and Software Education efforts. 2. Propose a Master's of Science in Software Engineering degree for my university (Texas Tech). 3. Get the proposed Software Engineering Research, Training, and Education Center (SERTEC) approved and funded at Texas Tech, and then try to organize an educational research consortium using SERTEC resources. 4. Work on getting more and better external senior projects and projects for our software studio, and continue to improve the software process used in projects. 5. Try to keep up better with my software engineering-related reading. 6. Try to improve my educational research methods. 7. Try to do more general software engineering research: it's a great way to stay on the cutting edge of educational issues. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Next Month's Topic The topic for February 1998 will be Personal Software Process (PSP) Education and Training. Tom Hilburn of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University will be the Guest Editor. Please contact Tom at hilburn@db.erau.edu if you are interested in contributing. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Upcoming topics The March 1998 topic will be software education across the computing field. This will be a follow-up to a CSEE&T workshop on the same subject (see related article under CSEE&T 98). Please contact Don Bagert (bagert@ttu.edu) if interested in this topic. Here are some of the topics planned for future issues: * Distance Learning * Software Engineering Education and Training Outside of the U.S. * Object Technology Education and Training * Software Metrics Education * Web Pages * Student Team Projects Last month, mentioned that he 100th issue of FASE will be occurring in 1998, and that more info would be forthcoming. Well, it will, but not until next month =) Please send any suggestions for future topics to me at bagert@ttu.edu. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Features ####################################################################### From: Kathy Beckman Training Web Site www.funderstanding.com This website uses the lighthearted metaphor of a Funhouse to present information and scenarios for adult learning. In the Learning Theory Funhouse, there are links to 7 core theories from education, cognitive science, and other related fields that enhance learning potential. The core theories are: Learning Theory, Complexity, Neural Networks, Systems Theory, Educational Reform, Architecture, and Emotional Intelligence. The site's Portfolio page presents a case study for redesigning a traditional 2-day adult training class to incorporate some of these core theories. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ News Items ####################################################################### From: Don Bagert (bagert@ttu.edu) Texas State Board of Professional Engineers: An Update As was reported in the December 1997 issue of FASE, the a five- member panel met on 18 November with the Licensing Committee of the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers, to discuss the possible licensing and registration of software engineers. At the end of this meeting, the panel members were appointed as an Advisory Committee for Software Engineering to the State Board; a sixth member was later appointed. The six members of the committee consisted of the following: Donald J. Bagert, Texas Tech University, Associate Professor of Computer Science Gerald Burnham, UT Dallas, Associate Dean of Engineering Dennis Frailey, Raytheon TI Systems, Senior Software Technologist and Southern Methodist University, Adjunct Professor of Computer Science and Engineering Otto M Friedrich, Jr., U. of Texas at Austin, Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering William M. Marcy, Associate Dean of Research and Chairperson of Computer Science, College of Engineering, Texas Tech University David Rentschler, Tandem Computers, Quality Engineering The first charge of this committee was to come up with a one-sentence definition of software engineering. The current draft of that definition is Software engineering is the analysis, design, implementation and assurance of software that comprises or is part of a system produced by the practice of engineering. [Note: Some comments concerning this proposed definition can be found elsewhere in this issue.] The committee was then asked to meet with the Education Advisory Committee of the State Board on 15 January 1998 to discuss the proposed licensing of software engineers. The Education Committee consists of all of the Engineering Deans in the State of Texas. All members of the committee, except for Drs. Frailey and Burnham, were able to attend. To begin the discussion the deans Dr. Marcy was asked to briefly discuss what the committee's views were on what software engineering is, and why the licensing of practitioners as professional engineers (PEs) was important to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The floor was then open to discussion. Several of the deans had serious concerns about this issue. One dean, whose computer science department is not in their college of engineering, stated that his interaction with computer scientists were such that he was convinced that the thought processes used by those in the computing field to perform job-related functions were very different of those that engineers use; therefore, it was difficult to believe that software development was actually an engineering. Several deans also expressed concern about whether the discipline of software engineering was truly under their sphere of the State Board's charge (other than the fact that people operating in Texas must be registered as PEs in order to be able to call themselves engineers). One dean stated that he felt that computer scientists did not actually do engineering, but instead coded processes that other types of engineers had formulated. A dean also expressed concern that since software engineers needed to little about such topics as strength of materials and thermodynamics, that their training would be too different than other types of engineers. However, other deans, and members of the state board attending the meeting, expressed views that supported the licensing of software engineers, including: those people currently calling themselves software engineers have no means of obtain professional engineering registration, thereby making the law more difficult to enforce; that all engineering disciplines trains students differently in several ways; and that ABET (with the help of IEEE) was in process of formulating and approving software engineering accredition guidelines. [Editor Note: See the August 1997 issue of FASE; an update will be provided in a near-future issue.] Also, several members of the software engineering advisory committee provided additional arguments in favor of licensing. Dr. Marcy discussed how software developers interacted with other engineers in the development of various software systems. David Rentschler related how critical software survivability was for systems developed by his company. Dr. Bagert argued that since software was a product that public expected to perform reliably, it was something required engineering, and that software engineers did use traditional engineering principles in their development processes. Furthermore, deviations in curriculum content and the body of knowledge between software engineering and other engineering disciplines are due to the fact that software is a non-physical entity. At the end of the discussion, there was something of a consensus that the exploration of the issue of licensing software engineers in the State of Texas should move forward. Dave Dorchester, chair of the State Board Licensing Committee, noted that a body of knowledge for software engineers would need to be defined in order to formulate professional engineering examinations. It was related that Dennis Frailey, in the licensing committee in November, stated that a Pilot Survey had been commissiioned and published by the Joint IEEE Computer Society and ACM Steering Committee for the Establishment of Software Engineering as a Profession, but that it currently lacked the resources to conduct and evaluate a complete survey in order to determine the body of knowledge. At that time, Mr. Dorchester suggested that a consortium of universities and companies seeking external funding for such a survey. With this in mind, Mr. Dorchester suggested that a committee of the deans be formed to study the possibility of forming such a consortium. Dr. C. Roland Haden of Texas A&M, chair of the education advisory committee, appointed a committee of five deans for that purpose. The discussion of software engineering was then concluded. The next meeting of the entire Texas Board of Professional Engineers will be on Wednesday 18 February 1998. ####################################################################### Forwarded by: Laurie Werth From: elemam@iese.fhg.de (Khaled El-Emam) IEEE TCSE Software Process Newsletter #11 Available Hello Folks, Issue #11 of the IEEE TCSE Software Process Newsletter is now available electronically. Access info below. If you have problems reading/uncompressing/printing the files, please let me know and I will send you a hard copy. Software Process Newsletter, No. 11, Winter 1998 Table of Contents * The Case Against ISO 9000 John Seddon * The Case Against ISO 9000: A Response Andy Coster * Selecting Projects for Technology Evaluation Barbara Kitchenham * Communication and Organisation: An Empirical Study of Code Inspections Carolyn Seaman * Software Process Improvement for Knowledge Engineering Brian Dunseath * Software and Systems Engineering Process Development and Integration at Oerlikon Aerospace Claude Laporte and Nicola Papiccio * Hard Problems and Hard Science: On the Practical Limits of Experimentation James Herbsleb * European SPI-Glass Colin Tully * SPICE Spotlight Alec Dorling -- Availability: Anonymous ftp - Site: ftp-se.cs.mcgill.ca Login: Anonymous Directory: "pub/spn" File: spn_no11.ps.Z (this is compressed using the Unix "compress" program) spn_no11.zip (this is compressed using pkzip on the PC) spn_no11.pdf (this is Adobe's PDF format) WWW - Page: http://www-se.cs.mcgill.ca/process/spn.html or : http://www.iese.fhg.de/SPN/process/spn.html ####################################################################### Forwarded by: Laurie Werth (lwerth@cs.utexas.edu) CALL FOR NOMINATIONS +-----------------------------------+ | STEVENS LECTURE | | ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT METHODS | +-----------------------------------+ WAYNE P. STEVENS AWARD Nominations are sought for the 1998 and 1999 presentations of the Stevens Award and Lecture. The purpose of the Stevens Lecture is to advance the state of software development methods and enhance their continuing evolution. The award recipient is recognized for outstanding contributions to the literature or practice of methods for software development. The lecture presentation focuses on advancing or analyzing the state of software methods and their direction for the future. Past recipients are: 1995 Tony Wasserman (USA) 1996 David Harel (Israel) 1997 Michael Jackson (United Kingdom) This award lecture is named in memory of Wayne Stevens (1944-1993), a highly-respected consultant, author, pioneer, and advocate of the practical application of software methods and tools. His 1974 article "Structured Design" was the first published on the topic and has been widely reprinted from the IBM Systems Journal. He was the author of the books Software Design: Concepts and Methods (Prentice- Hall Intl, 1991) and Using Structured Design (Wiley, 1981). His last article "Data Flow Analysis and Design" appears in the Encyclopedia of Software Engineering (Wiley, 1994). Stevens was the chief architect of IBM's application development methodology. The Stevens Lecture is presented by IWCASE, the international association which sponsors the Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP) conference. The 1998 lecture will be presented at the 6th Reengineering Forum conference, 9-11 March 1998, in Florence Italy (see http://www.reengineer.org/ref98/). The 1999 lecture will be presented at the STEP conference, date to be announced. Nominations for the Stevens Award may be submitted by letter, fax, or electronic mail and must include a description of the contribution of the nominee (up to 3 pages), citations of key contributions to the literature on software methods, and contact information for both the nominee and the nominator. Anyone may submit a nomination. Send nominations by 5 January 1998 to: Stevens Lecture Committee fax +1-781-272-8464 IWCASE email iwcase@iwcase.org P.O. Box 400 Burlington, MA 01803 USA Questions and requests for information should be directed to the chair of the Stevens Award Committee: Elliot Chikofsky, DMR Consulting Group phone +1-781-272-0049; email e.chikofsky@computer.org IWCASE Executive Board 1998 Karl Reed, La Trobe University (Australia) Paul Layzell, UMIST - University of Manchester (United Kingdom) Francois Coallier, Bell Canada (Canada) Elliot Chikofsky, DMR Consulting Group (USA) Gene Forte, Intel Corporation (USA) Gene Hoffnagle, IBM Corporation (USA) John Jenkins, City University London (United Kingdom) Swee-Cheang Lim, National Univ of Singapore (Singapore) Hausi Muller, University of Victoria (Canada) Jacob Slonim, Dalhousie University (Canada) Jos Trienekens, Technical University Eindhoven (Netherlands) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Calls for Participation ####################################################################### From: John O. Jenkins (J.O.Jenkins@city.ac.uk) Fifth International Workshop on Software Engineering Education (IWSEE 5): second posting The annual ICSE workshop on SEE is April 25 in Kyoto Japan, immediately following the main ICSE conference. Participation is via a position paper which should be around 500 words in length and address some aspect of graduate level software engineering education. In other words education offered to individuals having a bachelors degree or equivalent and hopefully some relevant working experience in a software/system development environment. Of particular relevance/interest are distance learning programmes, studio type programmes such as that offered at CMU and part time programmes for those in full-time employment.Life time learning is a term we hear increasingly. Should we redseign our programmes on the assumption that lifetime learning becomes the norm for professional people? Position Papers should be sent to me by email(as an attached Word document) asap and not later than March 28. Acceptance will be notified asap after receipt of position paper together with registration details (workshop fee will be 100 US Dollars for IEEE/ACM members). ####################################################################### Forwarded by: Laurie Werth (lwerth@cs.utexas.edu) Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society (JBCS) ================================================ CALL FOR PAPERS =============== Special Issue on Software Engineering (JULY 1998) The Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society (JBCS) is planning a Special Issue on Software Engineering on July 1998. This Special Issue of the JBCS welcomes papers describing original ideas and new results in the area of Software Engineering. Papers may be practical or conceptual in nature. Suggested topics include but are not limited to: - Social Aspects of Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering - Industrial Applications of Software Engineering - Theoretical Foundations for Software Engineering - Methods, Techniques, Languages, Tools and Environments - Software Evolution - Object Oriented Paradigm - Software Process: models and formalization - Reuse: theory and practice - Verification, Validation and Testing - Software Quality - Software Reengineering - Empirical Studies - New Trends INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS =========== === ======= Please submit 5 copies of your paper to the Special Issue Guest Editors Electronic submissions will be accepted in formats .ps and .doc. Jose Carlos Maldonado Paulo Cesar Masiero ICMSC-USP Caixa Postal 668 13560-970, S~ao Carlos, SP Brasil Email: jbcses@icmsc.sc.usp.br Fax: +55-16-274 9150 Contributions will be considered for publication in JBCS if they have not been previously published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of papers for publication is subject to a peer review procedure and is conditional on revisions being made given comments from referees. Details of format for the final version will be provided for accepted papers. Authors must submit the final version in electronic format according to the instructions they will receive when the paper is accepted. The final version should be approximately 8000 words in length. Each paper should be no more than 20 pages long, including all text, figures and references. Submitted papers are to be written in English and typed double-spaced on one side of white A4 sized paper. Authors should take into consideration the limit of 8000 words for the final version. Paper submissions are preferred for the initial refereeing. The first page should contain the article title (not more than 15 words), author(s)' name(s) and affiliation(s), and the name and complete mailing address (both postal and email) of the person to whom correspondence should be sent, as well as a short abstract. All contributions will be acknowledged and refereed. The article's body must start on the second page with the title and short summary repeated on the page's top. * No acknowledgment should be included (it can be included in the final version of the paper). * There should be no reference to unpublished work by the authors (thesis, working papers, etc.). Thesis, dissertations and technical reports can be included in the final version. However, working papers or papers submitted for publication will not be accepted in the list of references. * When referring to the author(s)'s own work, use the third person. For example, say "previously, [Peter1993] has shown that ...", instead of "the author [Peter1993] has shown that ..." * Priority should be given to references more easily accessible and to the more recent references on each subject. IMPORTANT DATES =============== Submission deadline February 15, 1998 (PAPERS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DATE - THIS A FIRM DEADLINE) Notification of acceptance April 30, 1998 Electronic camera ready version June 15, 1998 For additional information on the Journal, and on how to submit papers in order to speed up final processing, contact the Editor-in- Chief Claudia Bauzer Medeiros DCC - IMECC - UNICAMP Caixa Postal 6065 13081-970 - Campinas - SP Brasil Email: cmbm@dcc.unicamp.br Fax: +55-192-397470 or use www page http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~jbcs. Please Note: A) JBCS will soon be published both on paper and electronically. Therefore, instructions for submission of the accepted papers are being changed to speed up publication. B) Any paper submitted by the editors or any close collaborator will be refereed through the Editor-in-Chief. ####################################################################### From: Eric Dubois (edu@info.fundp.ac.be) C A L L F O R P A P E R S : R E F S Q ' 9 8 Fourth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality June 8-9 1998 Pisa, Italy Preceding the CAiSE*98 conference. [An updated version of the CFP is available at http://www.ifi.uib.no/konf/refsq98/cfp98.html including a workshop preparation kit.] P U R P O S E The ultimate measure of software quality is the degree to which user requirements are fulfilled by a system, its fitness for use. Early elicitation and correct definition of requirements prevents costly rework during later development stages and provides the foundation for building high quality systems. Therefore, requirements engineering is considered as a more and more crucial part of the system life cycle. During requirements engineering the users and engineers have to find a way from an initially opaque and diverse system understanding to exact, reconciled and at least partially formalized software specifications. A multitude of methods from software engineering, ethnology, social sciences and psychology have been adapted to support this process, and to improve the requirements specification as a foundation for higher software quality. Most of these methods are relying on adequate specification languages which are expressive and formal enough so that the represented quality requirements can be verified or validated. At the REFSQ'94, REFSQ'95 and REFSQ'97 workshops researchers and practitioners from various disciplines presented approaches to improve the definition and implementation of quality requirements. The success of the earlier REFSQ's has encouraged us to provide a follow-up workshop REFSQ'98 as a stage for the discussion of quality-related problems in requirements engineering as they have developed over the last year. In particular, we like to encourage people from the requirements engineering, software engineering and information systems fields to present their approaches to higher software quality and to discuss how requirements engineering can contribute to it. G O A L The main goal of REFSQ'98 is to bring together people working in the fields of requirements engineering, software engineering and information systems focussing on the * specification of quality requirements; * their traceability back to user needs and forward to the design; * their realization by SE and IS development methods; * the measurement of their achievement, as well as * consolidating the achievements of the three previous REFSQ workshops. T H E M E S REFSQ'98 invites contributions from research and industry within the following four main themes: * Managing the quality of RE processes. Relevant topics include: change management, procurement, RE for COTS, process modelling and monitoring, RE project organisation, quality models of RE and the RE process, environments for supporting RE processes, etc. * RE methods and techniques. Relevant topics include: RE using scenarios, goals and agents, RE with multiple viewpoints, traceability, etc. * Quality assurance and RE. Relevant topics include: models for quality assurance, considering quality assurance in RE, software quality and RE, specification of software quality requirements, measuring the quality of requirements, etc. * Mapping requirements specifications to software architecture and design. Relevant topics include: transformation and mapping methods, the interplay between requirements and software quality features, formal representation methods, etc. Note that the list of topics for each theme is not intended to be exhaustive. High-quality papers on other topics within any of the four themes are also welcomed. P A P E R S Papers of three types can be submitted to the workshop: * Full papers Full papers should emphasize what is new and significant about the chosen approach and adequately compare it with similar work. Integration of the contributions with mainstream SE and RE methods and products (like SA, OMT, ER, and the like) are especially encouraged. The maximum length of a full paper is 6000 words. * Position papers Position papers should state the author's research position with respect to - view of current RE practice, - relations between current RE practice and RE research, and/or - research methodology and ontological assumptions. Papers should emphasise which topics that are of particular concern to the RE community at present, and why. The maximum length of a position paper is 2000 words. * Industrial problem statements People from industry are especially encouraged to submit problem statements. Industrial problem statements should focus on perceived mis-matches between current RE practice and research and/or on emerging areas of concern for RE practitioners. An industrial problem statement may be about one page long, but more comprehensive statements will also be considered. W O R K S H O P F O R M A T The workshop will be an interactive forum. Attendance will be limited to 30 people and all participants must have a paper accepted for the workshop. Authors which do not attend the workshop will not have their papers published in the proceedings. The workshop language is English. The workshop will be organized in conjunction with the CAiSE*98 conference, and all workshop participants must also attend the main conference. The accepted papers will be made available electronically to all workshop participants before the workshop, so that presentations can be kept short. Each presentation will be summarized and commented on by a discussant, on behalf of all the other authors in the same session. The discussant will be followed by a plenary discussion of the paper. In addition, there will be a plenary discussion at the end of each session. At the end of the workshop there will be a general discussion, including a brainstorming session about areas or topics the participants would like to see more RE research on. Email sessions between the participants will be organised before the workshop to prepare for fruitful and focussed plenary discussions and brainstorms. For more information, see the workshop preparation kit at http://www.ifi.uib.no/konf/refsq98/kit98.html . I N S T R U C T I O N S F O R A U T H O R S Send your full paper (max. 6000 words), position paper (max. 2000 words) or industrial problem statement (approx. 1 page) by e-mail or via normal post before March 9th (arrival date) to: REFSQ'98 c/o A L Opdahl Department of Information Science University of Bergen N-5020 Bergen Norway Andreas.Opdahl@ifi.uib.no Email submission is encouraged, as the accepted papers will later be distributed to the other participants electronically. Papers will be published in the REFSQ'98 workshop proceedings, and the papers will be made available electronically for the participants before the workshop. We also intend to provide paper preprints at the beginning of the workshop, but this is dependent on the funding we receive. I M P O R T A N T D A T E S Submission deadline: March 9th 1998 Acceptance notification: April 9th 1998 Confirmation of participation: April 24th 1998 Camera ready paper due: May 9th 1998 O R G A N I Z A T I O N Eric Dubois Andreas L. Opdahl Klaus Pohl Dept of Computer Science Dept of Inf Science Informatik V FUND Namur Univ of Bergen RWTH Aachen Namur N-5020 Bergen D-52074 Aachen Belgium Norway Germany Tel. +32-81-72 41 11 +47-5558-4115 +49-241-80-21512 Fax. +32-81-72 49 67 +47-5558-4107 +49-241-8888-321 edu@info.fundp.ac.be Andreas.Opdahl@ifi.uib.no pohl@informatik.rwth-aachen.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Conference Announcements ####################################################################### From: Mike McCracken (mike@cc.gatech.edu) The 11th Conference on Software Engineering, Education and Training (CSEE&T) - Additional Posting (The first time was in a special posting after the December issue was sent.) CSEET98 Conference - Building the Bridge February 23-25,1998 Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technologies Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society with support from The Software Engineering Institute and The College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology The purpose of the conference is to influence directions in education and training, to stimulate new instructional approaches, to promote collaboration, and to generate exchanges among software engineering stake holders. Software engineering cannot stand in isolation: To be a vibrant, evolving discipline, bridges must be built and maintained to a variety of other disciplines and organizations. The development of curricula and training programs can only be enhanced by close working relationships with computer science and established branches of engineering. In addition, industrial and academic collaboration is essential to the creation of educational and training programs that can adapt to evolving needs and advancing technology. The conference covers such topics as: Bridges to other computing disciplines - How should software engineering interact with other computer science disciplines? Bridges to engineering - How much "engineering" should be in software engineering? Bridges to industry - How does education and training impact the field? Eclectic bridges - How can software engineering interact with the social sciences to improve the state of the art? Conference Program Overview The conference program includes talks on state of the art software engineering education and training techniques and experiences, parallel tutorials for breaking technologies, and a special one day set of workshops focused at the future of software engineering education. The conference also includes two keynote addresses by recognized leaders in software engineering, Robert Glass and Peter Freeman. Included in the conference fee is admission to all workshops, tutorials and keynote addresses as well as social events and the proceedings. Included will be a reception at the College of Computing with demonstrations of educational technologies developed by the EduTech Institute at Georgia Tech, and the state of the art research products of the Graphics, Visualization and Usability Center. The conference is being held at the Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technology (GCATT). GCATT is a joint development of the Georgia Research Alliance and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. It houses researchers from Georgia Tech, telecommunications industry and other universities from the State of Georgia. The conference hotel is the Marriott Marquis, which is located close to Georgia Tech. The conference will provide bus transportation to GCATT. There is parking at GCATT for those who prefer to drive. The conference has been scheduled the same week of the ACM SIGCSE conference for those who wish to attend both conferences. The ACM SIGCSE conference begins the day after CSEET is complete. The conference's special Wednesday session of workshops that are focused on building bridges, "Educating the Software Professional", has a special one day rate for those SIGCSE attendees who may wish to come in for one day rather than the three days of the complete CSEET conference. For more information on the conference, including updates to the final program, conference registration, hotel reservations, and other conference notices, please visit our web site. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/conferences/CSEET98/cseet.htm or e-mail: mike@cc.gatech.edu 1998 CSEET Session/Panel Descriptions Monday, 23 Feb 98 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9:00-10:00 Keynote Address - Perspectives on SE Education Peter Freeman Georgia Institute of Technology -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10:30 - 12:00 Distributed and Distance Education Distributed Student Projects in Software Pearl Brereton Matt Gumbley, Sue Lees Keele University Teaching via Asynchronous Learning Networks Gregory W. Hilsop Drexel University Software Engineering at a Distance Heidi J.C. Ellis Rensselaer at Hartford ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1:30 - 5:00 Tutorial Training Risk Management : Bridge Over Troubled Waters Elaine Hall Level 6 Software ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1:30 - 2:30 Panel Organizational Placement of Software Engineering in a University Gregory Hilsop, Moderator Drexel University ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3:00 - 5:00 Multi-Disciplinary Approaches A Multi-Dimensional Model of the Software Engineering Curriculum A. J. Cowling University of Sheffield A Survey of the Relevance of Computer Science and Software Engineering Education Timothy Lethbridge University of Ottawa Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Management Information Systems : Partners in a Unified Software Engineering Curriculum A. Parrish, R. Borie, D. Cordes, B. Dixon, D. Hale University of Alabama Eclectic Bridges David M. West University of St. Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tuesday, 24 Feb 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9:00-10:00 Keynote Address - New Software Concepts: Breakthroughs or BS? Robert Glass Computing Trends ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10:30 - 12:00 Process and Methodology Measuring Team Activities in a Process Oriented Software Engineering Course Pierre N. Robillard Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Teaching Systems Analysis to Software Engineering Students: Experience with a Structured Methodology A. J. Cowling University of Sheffield In Support of Student Process Improvement Richard L. Upchurch and Judith E. Sims-Knight University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1:30 - 3:00 Panel What Industry Wants from New Graduates David Carter, Motorola Corporation Moderator ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3:30 - 5:00 Bridging Academia and Industry Building the Bridge Between Industry and Universities: The Graduates into SMEs Project Lesley Beddle, Elayne Burley, Lucy MacLeod, and Jan Tunnock Napier University Educating Industrial Strength Software Engineers Jorge L. Diaz-Herrera Monmouth University and Gerald M. Powell HQ, US Army Communications-Electronics Command Certification and Licensing for Software Professionals and Organizations Laurie Honour Werth University of Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 25 Feb 98 Educating the Software Professional ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8:30 - 12:00 Morning Workshop Teaching Project-Oriented Courses Dale Oexmann Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and Tom Hilburn Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1:30 - 5:00 Afternoon Workshop Professional and Ethical Training in Industry and Academia Don Gotterbarn East Tennessee State University ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8:30-5:00 Full Day Workshop Software Education 2000: Computing at the Crossroads Donald Bagert Texas Tech University Morning Session (8:30 - 12:00) Accreditation, Licensing, and Professional Issues Afternoon Session (1:30 - 5:00) Software Development: Science or Engineering? ####################################################################### From: Don Bagert (bagert@ttu.edu) CSEE&T Software Education 2000 Workshop: An Update An discussion of the Workshop "Software Education 2000: Computing at the Crossroads" was included in the December 1997 issue of FASE. Below is the final schedule. Morning Session: Accreditation, Licensing, and Professional Issues 8:30- 8:35 am Introduction by either one of the conference organizers 8:35- 8:45 am Overview of Workshop Objectives (overall and morning) by Don Bagert 8:45- 9:30 am Doris Lidtke (representing CSAB) 9:30-10:15 am Jerry Yeargan (representing ABET) 10:15-10:30 am Break 10:30-11:15 am Richard LeBlanc (representing the IEEE-ACM Software Engineering Education Task Force) 11:15-12:00 pm Dave Dorchester (representing the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers) 12:00- 1:30 pm Lunch (on your own) Afternoon Session: Software Development: Science or Engineering? 1:30- 1:35 pm Introduction by either Mike Lutz or Mike McCracken 1:35- 1:45 pm Overview of Workshop Objectives (afternoon) by Don Bagert 1:45- 2:30 pm Tom Hilburn (representing the Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training, discussing the Guidelines for Software Education) 2:30- 3:15 pm David Feinstein (representing IS '97) 3:15- 3:30 pm Break 3:30- 4:15 pm Stu Hirschfield of Hamilton College (discussing software education in a CS/liberal arts environment) 4:15- 5:00 pm Wrapup, discussion, where do we go from here? (Don Bagert) For more information about the workshop, contact Don Bagert (bagert@ttu.edu); for more about CSEE&T, see the advance conference program in the previous item. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Don Bagert (Academic Editor) Feedback on Draft Software Engineering Definition Note: The comments in this article are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Texas Tech University or the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and its various committees. Earlier in this issue the draft definition of software engineering being used by the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers was reprinted. Once again, it is: Software engineering is the analysis, design, implementation and assurance of software that comprises or is part of a system produced by the practice of engineering. Dennis Frailey and I received several comments concerning this definition. Most of them either provided definitions from various sources, or were concerned that the definition of software engineering was too narrow. At first, I was concerned about this also. I wanted to drop the last 14 words of that definition, leaving Software engineering is the analysis, design, implementation and assurance of software. However, I was given some good reasons about why the definition should stay as it is. I was concerned that stand-alone software e.g. a customized database system developed for a state agency would not be covered by such a definition. The response was that yes, it would be. The reason for this is the definition of "practice of engineering" in the Texas Engineering Practice Act: "'Practice of engineering' or 'practice of professional engineering' shall mean any service or creative work, either public or private, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training or experience in the appplication of special knowldge or judgment of the mathematical, physical or engineering sciences to such services or creative work." My feeling is that such a database system could not provide "adequate performance" without some degree of software engineering education applied to the problem. In fact, I would argue that building a piece of software of any reasonable size would have the same needs. What if the software is of very small size? Well, then it probably does not require the practice of engineering, just as building a good doghouse does not require a mechanical engineer. Another point to keep in mind is that only products that are developed and sold to a single customer are covered by the Texas Engineering Practice Act. Therefore, a mass-marketed video game would not be covered, nor would Windows 98 ;) Finally, the Texas Board was created and is empowered to protect the "health, safety, and welfare of the public". In the short term, the Board will probably focus on the health and safety aspects of this charge as far as software is concerned, e.g. for a process control system. If you have any more comments, please feel free to contact me at bagert@ttu.edu. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contact and General Information about FASE The Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) is published on the 15th of each month by the FASE editorial board. Send newsletter articles to one of the editors, preferably by category: Articles pertinent to corporate and government training to Kathy Beckman, Kathy.Beckman@cdsi.com; Academic education, and all other categories to Don Bagert, bagert@ttu.edu. Items must be submitted by the 8th of the month in order to be considered for inclusion in that month's issue. Everyone that is receiving this is on the FASE mailing list. If you wish to leave this list, write to listserv@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: signoff fase To rejoin (or have someone else join) the FASE mailing list, write to listserv@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase But what if you have something that you want share with everyone else, before the next issue? For more real-time discussion, there is the FASE-TALK discussion list. It is our hope that it will be to FASE readers what the SIGCSE.members listserv is to that group. (For those of you that don't know, SIGCSE is the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education.) To subscribe to the FASE-TALK list, write to listserv@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase-talk Please try to limit FASE-TALK to discussion items related to software engineering education and training; CFPs and other such items can still be submitted to the editor for inclusion into FASE. Anyone that belongs to the FASE-TALK mailing list can post to it. As always, there is no cost for subscribing to either FASE or FASE-TALK! Send requests for information problem reports, returned mail, or other correspondence about this newsletter to fase-request@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu. If it is a LOC (letter of comment) that can be included as such in a future issue of FASE, please put "letter of comment" (without the quotes) as the subject. Back issues (from 1997) can be found on the FASE web page (http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase). The FASE Staff: Don Bagert -- Academic/Misc Editor and ListMaster Dept. of Computer Science 8th and Boston Texas Tech University Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA Phone: 806-742-1189 Fax: 806-742-3519 Email: bagert@ttu.edu Kathy Beckman -- Corporate/Government Editor Computer Data Systems One Curie Ct. Rockville MD 20850 USA Phone: 301-921-7027 Fax: 301-921-1004 Email: Kathy.Beckman@cdsi.com Laurie Werth -- Advisory Committee Taylor Hall 2.124 University of Texas at Austin Austin TX 78712 USA Phone: 512-471-9535 Fax: 512-471-8885 Email: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu Nancy Mead -- Advisory Committee Software Engineering Institute 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA Phone: 412-268-5756 Fax: 412-268-5758 Email: nrm@sei.cmu.edu