Home
Education Page
Description
Schedule
Slides
Assignments
Projects
Reviews
Literature

Center
Master Program
Paper Reviews

Swe03
Experience is a good way to understand the issues involved in software engineering. However, to better tackle the problems you encounter, you should get an overview of software engineering theory as well. In this course you are expected to read one paper
each week and hand in a review of the paper which expresses your understanding of the paper, as well as its position in the field of software engineering. Furthermore, you are expected to summarize the lecture of that week and discuss its relation to the paper.

%TOC%

----++ Reviews

-------+++ Structure

For each of the papers below, write a review of 1000 words which 

   * positions the paper within software engineering (150 words)
   * summarizes the paper (350 words)
   * summarizes the lecture (350 words)
   * discusses the relation between the paper and the lecture (150 words)

Positioning the paper should be done with respect to the relevant chapter
in the [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] as cited below.

-------+++ Format 

   * Write the review in english
   * Use your own words! Copy and paste is plagiarism
   * Format the review in ASCII 
      * lines should be no wider than 80 characters
      * use blank lines to separate paragraphs
      * use =-----+++ title= to indicate headings
      * no other markup should be necessary
      * submissions in other formats will not be considered

   * Don't forget to include your name _and_ student number.

-------+++ Workcycle

   1 Monday: attend lecture, get paper via website
   1 Whole week: read paper and write review
   1 Next Monday: deadline for review
   1 Goto 1

You are responsible for keeping the schedule. 

-----+++ Grading

Reviews will be graded with a grade in the range A - D, F. This corresponds to numeric
grades 4 - 0. The final grade for reviews is the sum of the grades divided by 4n times 10.
Note that all reviews should be handed in.

Grades are determined based on the following points

   * Adequate summary of paper and lecture
   * Good understanding of position in software engineering
   * Quality of writing (grammar, vocabulary, structure)

----++ Submission

Reviews are due on the Monday _following_ the week in which a paper should before 12:00. 
It should be handed in using the [[http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/submit/][submit]] system. 
The deadline is *hard*; 
it is not possible to submit reviews after the deadline.

----++ Papers

----+++ [[Requirements engineering]] (week 36)

   * B. Regnell, K. Kimbler, and A. Wesslen, [[http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/regnell95improving.html]["Improving the Use Case Driven Approach to Requirements Engineering"]], Proc. RE'95 - 2nd Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering, York, IEEE, 1995, 40-47.

   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapters 2

   * Note: since the lecture was about the whole software lifecycle, summarize Chapter 2 of the SWEBOK instead of the lecture and place the paper in the context of the general RE picture.

----+++ [[Version management]] (week 37)

   * [[http://www.ipd.uka.de/~tichy/][Walter Tichy]]. [[http://www.ida.liu.se/~petfr/princprog/cm.pdf][Software Configuration Management Overview.]]

   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapter 7

----+++ [[Software process]] (week 38)

   * The assignment for this week is a little different: Write a 1000 word overview of [[extreme programming]] process model, outlining its main ingredients, and indicating what makes it different to other models. The [[http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap][Extreme Programming Roadmap]] is a good entry point to the numerous sources on XP.

   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapter 8 & 9

----+++ [[Software testing]] (week 39)

   * Adam Porter, Harvey Siy, and Lawrence Votta. [[http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers/cs/1391/ftp:zSzzSzftp.cs.umd.eduzSzpubzSzpaperszSzpaperszSzncstrl.umcpzSzCS-TR-3552zSzCS-TR-3552.ps.gz/porter96review.ps.gz][A Review of Software Inspections]] In Marvin Zelkowitz, editor, Software Process, volume 42 of Advances in Computers. Academic Press, 1996. 

   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapter 5

----+++ [[Software reuse]] (week 41)
   
   * Charles Krueger. [[http://www.biglever.com/papers/Krueger_AcmReuseSurvey.pdf][SoftwareReuse]] in ACM Computing Surveys, June 1992, pages 131-183.

   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapter 4

----+++ [[Software metrics]] (week 42)

   * A. Chou, J. Yang, B. Chelf, S. Hallem, and D. Engler. [[http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/chou01empirical.html][An Empirical Study of Operating Systems Errors]] In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles (SOSP '01), Oct. 2001.
   
   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapter 11

----+++ [[Software maintenance]] (week 43)

   * David Lorge Parnas. [[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=257788&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=13119204&CFTOKEN=43872098][Software aging]]. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'94). pp 279 - 287. Sorrento, Italy, 1994

   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapter 6

---------------------------

----+++ [[Software logistics]] (week 44) (bonus)

This review is optional. If you failed a previous review you can improve your score
by making this one. Indicate in the review which review you want to replace.
   
   * André van der Hoek and Alexander L. Wolf. [[http://www.ics.uci.edu/~andre/research/papers/SPE2002.pdf][Software Release Management for Component-Based Software]] In Software - Practice and Experience 33, January 2003

   * [[Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge]] -- Chapter 7