sss ssss rrrrrrrrrrr
ssss ss rrrr rrrr
sssss s rrrr rrrr
ssssss rrrr rrrr
ssssssss rrrr rrrr
ssssss rrrrrrrrr
s ssssss rrrr rrrr
ss sssss rrrr rrrr
sss sssss rrrr rrrr
s sssssss rrrrr rrrrr
+===================================================+
+======= Testing Techniques Newsletter (TTN) =======+
+======= ON-LINE EDITION =======+
+======= March 1999 =======+
+===================================================+
TESTING TECHNIQUES NEWSLETTER (TTN), Online Edition, is E-mailed monthly
to support the Software Research, Inc. (SR)/TestWorks user community and
to provide information of general use to the worldwide software quality
and testing community.
Permission to copy and/or re-distribute is granted, and secondary
circulation is encouraged by recipients of TTN-Online provided that the
entire document/file is kept intact and this complete copyright notice
appears with it in all copies. (c) Copyright 2003 by Software Research,
Inc.
========================================================================
INSIDE THE MARCH 1999 ISSUE:
o SR Move to New Headquarters: Minnesota Street
o QW99 Conference Tour: Tutorials, Keynotes, QuickStarts, and BOFSs
o The Competitor: A Bimonthly Newsletter on Global Software
Competitiveness, by Don O'Neill.
o QWE'99 Call for Papers
o More on Cyclomatic Complexity, by Don Mills
o SR's Technology Resources
o Compatibility and Security Testing of Web-Based Applications
o Final Call: TOOLS USA'99
o Call for Papers on Web Engineering (HICSS'2000)
o TTN SUBMITTAL, SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
========================================================================
SR Move to New Headquarters Facility: 901 Minnesota Street
At the end of February SR moved to a new Corporate Headquarters
facility. Any move entails a reorganization, and we used this
opportunity to rearrange our facility so that we can be more efficient
and effective in our service to our customers. In addition, our new
facility gives us lots of room for future growth.
We keep the same phones, E-mail, and zipcode. Only the street and
number change:
Software Research, Inc.
901 Minnesota Street,
San Francisco, CA 94107 USA
We invite you to stop by and visit if you are in the neighborhood!
========================================================================
QW'99 Conference Tour -- Tutorials, Keynotes, QuickStarts, BOFSs
P R E - C O N F E R E N C E T U T O R I A L S
QW'99's fifteen full-day and half-day tutorials cover all of the main
stops in the software quality landscape.
Because software quality almost always deals with some kind of testing,
it's important to have a good foundation in this important software
quality area. As a general technical introduction to the software
testing field, be sure not to miss this world-renowned presentation: *
Dr. Boris Beizer (Independent Consultant) "An Overview of Testing: Unit,
Integration, System"
More advanced technological aspects are addressed by: * Ms. Karen
Bishop-Stone, CSTE, CSQA (Testware Associates, Inc.) "Practical Software
Test Case Design" * Dr. John D. McGregor (Software Architects and
Clemson University) "Testing Distributed Object Systems" * Mr. Edward
Kit & Mr. Hans Buwalda (Software Development Technologies / CMG Finance)
"Integrated, Effective Test Design and Automation" * Dr. Norman
Schneidewind (Naval Postgraduate School) "Development and Maintenance
Process Assessment Using Reliability, Risk, and Test Metrics"
The important emerging area of reliability methods coupled with
sophisticated requirements analysis is addressed by these three
tutorials: * Dr. John D. Musa (Independent Consultant) "Software
Reliability Engineering: More Reliable Software, Faster", * Mr. Michael
Deck (Cleanroom Software Engineering, Inc.) "Requirements Analysis Using
Formal Methods", and, * Dr. Linda H. Rosenberg (Software Assurance
Technology Center, NASA) "Writing High Quality Requirement
Specifications".
Picking up current trends in OO technology, including the newer
approaches for measuring thoroughness, we have these three tutorials: *
Mr. Robert Binder (RBSC Corporation) "Modal Testing Strategies for
Object-Oriented Software", * Mr. Thomas A. Drake (Coastal Research &
Technology Consultant) "Measuring Object-Oriented Software Quality for
C++ and Java", and, * Mr. William Bently (mu_Research) "How to Test an
Object: The Information Flow Approach".
A complete program of software quality cannot leave out issues of
process improvement. QW'99 offers these three tutorials that address
important quality aspects, with particular emphasis on inspection based
methods: * Dr. Magdy Hanna (International Institute for Software
Testing) "Establishing a Software Inspection Process", * Mr. Tom Gilb
(Result Planning Limited) "Advanced Inspection (G2)", and, * Mr. Leonard
Verhoef (Human Efficiency) "Improving Software Quality for Users".
Lastly, in keeping with the "Facing the Future" theme of QW'99, we bring
you a tutorial on what promises to be the next great challenge of
software quality, the Web: * Ms. Sally Drew (Tescom UK SST) "E-Commerce
Testing -- The Clash of the Titans (J2)"
K E Y N O T E T A L K S
QW'99's theme is "Facing the Future" -- chosen to emphasize the coming
end of the year 1999 and the beginning of the year 2000 and all that
means, but also to focus attention on "what happens after Y2K?"
We begin with the most important areas in regard to software quality:
E-Commerce and the Internet. * Dr. Cem Kaner (Attorney at Law) "Facing
the Future: The Law (1P1)" addresses the legal issues, and * Mr. Jeff
Schuster (Rational Software Corporation) "Facing the Future: E-Commerce
Quality and YOU! (1P2)" addresses how the growth of E-Commerce will
affect us all.
Process issues are sure to dominate the field in the coming years, and
we have two view on this. First, we have the award-winning * Mr. Martin
Pol (IQUIP Informatica B.V.) with "Facing the Future Means Facing Test
Maturity (5P1)" arguing that Future Quality will be obtained only
through mature testing organizations. Following up is former Microsoft
test manager * Mr. Roger Sherman (Independent Consultant) with his talk
"Facing the Future: Commercial Product Testing (5P2)".
How we think about Quality is as important as how we achieve it, and
these two keynotes attempt to outline the future from the user's point
of view. First, world renowned * Dr. Jakob Nielsen (Nielsen Norman
Group) will present "Facing the Future: Usability Aspects of Quality
(10P1)". He'll be followed by the equally renowned * Mr. Brian Marick
(Reliable Software Technologies Corp.) who in his talk "Facing the
Future: New Models for Test Development (10P2)" will raise questions
about whether there are intrinsic limits to our quality process models.
On a lighter note, and to close the QW'99 event, we have invited the
well-known sage * Dr. Boris Beizer (Independent Consultant) to deliver a
poetic tribute to "The Mavin (10P3)".
Q U I C K S T A R T S E S S I O N S
Our QuickStart 90-minute sessions give newcomers to the software quality
field a rapid introduction to the main topics and issues facing us all.
The Y2K issue is addressed in: * Mr. Rainer Pirker and Mr. Andreas
Rudolf (IBM) "Millennium is Getting Closer -- The Quickstart to Y2K
Testing (2Q)".
Different aspects of testing, risk management, and test automation are
addressed in these three talks: * Ms. Elfriede Dustin & John Paul (CSC
/ Freddie Mac) "Moving From Conventional Testing to Object Oriented
Testing (9Q)", * Mr. Doug Hoffman and Dr. Cem Kaner (Software Quality
Methods / Independent Consultant) "Thoughts on Oracles and Software Test
Automation (4Q)", and, * Mr. Ted Hammer (NASA GSFC SATC) "Continuous
Risk Management at NASA (7Q)".
Ever the innovators, we are pleased to have: * Mr. Tom Gilb (Result
Planning Limited) "Evolutionary Project Management (`Evo') (3Q)", and, *
Mr. William J. Deibler II (SSQC) "Making the CMM Work: Streamlining the
CMM for Small Projects and Organizations (6Q)".
Finally, a topic of concern to almost all organizations is addressed by
* Dr. Cem Kaner (Independent Consultant) "Interviewing Software Testing
Job Candidates (8Q)".
B O F S
( B I R D S O F A F E A T H E R S E S S I O N S )
QW'99 introduces for the first time a Birds-of-a-Feather Track -- an
all-conference time slot set aside specifically for unstructured
discussions. Organized by QW"99 Keynoter Brian Marick and HP's Danny
Faught (keeper of the C.S.T. FAQ's), these sessions focus on important
contemporary topics of interest.
While ranging over a wide area, the BOFS topics form some natural
groups. One group, aimed at exposing the details of how quality control
and test technology are applied in the field, includes these sessions:
* Ms. Peggy Fouts (Compuware Corporation ) "Medical and Safety Critical
Application Testing (3B1)", * Mr. Larry Apfelbaum (Teradyne Software &
Systems Test) "Testing Telecommunications Software (4B1)", * Mr. Jon
Hagar (Lockheed Martin Astronautics Company) "Testing for Military and
Government Software (4B2)", and, * Mr. Richard Denney (Landmark
Graphics) "Blue Collar Formal Methods (7B2)".
We all know that the larger "software universe" is becoming more
important in the public sense, so we put in these two sessions: * Dr.
Cem Kaner (Independent Consultant) "Status Report On U.S. Software
Quality Laws (7B1)", and, * Ms. Elisabeth Hendrickson (Aveo, Inc.) "Mass
Market Software Testing (2B)".
Testing and quality control are human activities, and these three BOFSs
address various aspects: * Ms. Johanna Rothman (Rothman Consulting
Group, Inc.) "Life as a New Test Manager (6B)", * Mr. Rodney Wilson
(KLA-Tencor) "Care and Feeding of a Testing Career (8B1)", and, * Mr.
Mark Johnson (OrCAD) "Productivity In Small Integrated Teams (8B2)".
Lastly, the continuing (and important) interest in effective test
methods leads to these three sessions: * Mr. Mark D. Anderson
(Discerning Software Corporation) "Client/Server Load Testing (9B1)", *
Ms. Carla Oexmann (ATI Research) "Running a Nightly Test (9B2)", and, *
Mr. Mark S. Wiley (nCUBE) "OS and Embedded System Testing Techniques
(3B2)".
========================================================================
The Competitor: A Bimonthly Newsletter on
Global Software Competitiveness
by
Don O'Neill
The Center for National Software Studies is sponsoring a program of
study to improve the understanding of the value add of software to the
national economy and global competitiveness. It has found that:
1. The value of software to the national economy is not well understood.
2. The nation's leaders and enterprise executives are ignorant of
software and its role in global competitiveness.
3. Most view software only in terms of commodity applications for
personal computers.
The Competitor is a bimonthly newsletter whose purpose is to focus the
global software competitiveness issues that impact national policy.
These study reports are intended to improve the understanding of the
nation's leaders and the general public on the importance and risk of
software.
The web-based index to The Competitor articles can be found at
http://members.aol.com/ONeillDon2/new_competitor_index.html and
includes:
Here is an Index to The Competitor Articles:
Software Value Add Study
Global Software Competitiveness is on the Nation's Radar Screen
Software Value Points Deliver Benefits in Critical Industries
Set Direction, Provide Fuel, and Control the Environment... Be Globally
Competitive
Global Software Competitiveness Maturity Model
Software Maintenance... Essential to Global Software Competitiveness
Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit and Its Impact on Global Software
Competitiveness
Threats to the Nation's IT Resources and Potential Management Responses
Competitiveness in the Large
Evolution to Global Software Competitiveness
Critical Defect, Fault, and Failure Prediction
========================================================================
Quality Week Europe '99 (QWE'99) -- Call For Papers and Participation
Brussels, Belgium -- 1-5 November 1999
QWE'99 is the third in the continuing series of International Software
Quality Week/Europe Conferences that focus on advances in software test
technology, quality control, risk management, software safety, and test
automation.
We are soliciting tutorials and 45- and 90-minute presentations or panel
discussions on any area of QA, Testing and Automation, Quality
Processes, System Reliability and all related issues. Real-life
experiences or "how to" stories are particularly encouraged.
Mark your calendars and make your preparations now!
Abstracts and Proposals Due: 17 July 1999
Notification of Participation: 24 August 1999
Camera Ready Materials Due: 18 September 1999
Questions? Check out our WebSite or send Email to qw@soft.com or call
at [+1] (415) 861-2800.
========================================================================
More on Cyclomatic Complexity
by
Don Mills
Macroscope Services, Ltd.
Wellington
New Zealand
The problems with the Cyclomatic Complexity formula described in your
December issue arise generally when trying to compute a covering test
set (basis test set) for any process which has multiple points of entry
or exit. This includes graph models of business processes (in which
such situations are common), as well as non-structured program code
(where they may be necessary/desirable for some types of application or
process).
The formulae I use (and teach) for computing the size of the basis test
set take this into account. They are:
Formula (1): V(G) =3D L - N + E + X
where N =3D nodes, L =3D links between nodes, E =3D entry nodes (no
inlinks), and X =3D exit nodes (no outlinks). Both E and X are included
in N (i.e., entry and exit nodes are each counted twice). For "well-
structured" (single-entry, single-exit) graphs, this simplifies to the
more commonly-seen formula:
(1a): V(G) =3D L - N + 2
Formula (2): V(G) =3D R + E + X - 1
where E and X are as in Formula (1), and R identifies fully-enclosed
regions within the graph. For "well-structured" graphs, this simplifies
to the more usual:
(2a): V(G) =3D R + 1.
Malcolm Jenner's contribution to your January issue indicated that the
cyclomatic complexity number identifies "the *minimum* number of test
cases required to give 100% [coverage]" (my emphasis). My understanding
is that it identifies the *maximum* size of a covering test set in which
each successive path varies from all previous paths by the introduction
of one branch previously available but not previously selected (the
"change one thing at a time" principle; what Beizer calls, the
"scientific testing principle" -- ST for short). The true number of
paths required for coverage will be fewer than this if either (a) some
paths are unachievable because of interrelations between decisions and
other decisions or prior actions, or (b) the ST principle is not an
issue.
For example, consider this pseudocode fragment:
begin
get a, b
if a > 0 then
do x
endif
if b =3D 1 then
do y
endif end
There are four possible paths through this process; it has a cyclomatic
complexity of three; coverage can be achieved with only two test cases.
Using ! to represent NOT, all possible paths would be selected by the
four input couples:
1. a>0, b=3D1
2. a!>0, b=3D1
3. a!>0, b!=3D1
4. a>0, b!=3D1
100% branch and statement coverage would be achieved with a test set
containing only paths 1 and 3.
However, a covering set incorporating the ST principle (a "basis test
set") would include any *three* of the four paths. This type of
covering set has many advantages in more complicated models, including:
1) a systematic process for selecting paths (change one decision at a
time); 2) the possibility of greatly simplified test data creation
(change one value per input record); and 3) improved debugging
information by pinpointing probable bug location (exercise one new
process strand at a time).
(The last point corresponds to the original use of the basis test set in
isolating breaks in complex electrical circuits.)
To reiterate: the cyclomatic complexity indicates the *maximum* number
of test cases needed for coverage-plus-test-one-thing-at-a-time. More
will "never" be needed (but see below on complex decisions and on
loops), but you might not be able to achieve that many. Consider this
pseudocode fragment:
begin
get a, b
if a > 0 then
set c
do x /* process 'x' changes 'a' */
endif
do y
if c then /* 'a' was previously > 0 */
do z
endif end
V(G) for this process =3D 3 (as before), but (because of the dependency
between 'a>0' and 'c=3DTRUE') only two paths are actually achievable:
1. a>0
2. a!>0
As Malcolm Jenner indicated, though, the value of V(G) depends on the
sensitivity of our decision analysis. A complex decision such as 'a > 0
AND b =3D 1' might be graphed as a single decision node, or as two
decision structures ('b=3D1' nested within the TRUE branch for 'a>0').
In the latter case, V(G) would be increased by one (a practice I
encourage).
And what about "Bob's" original query regarding "the McCabe's basis path
model having to do with loops..."? I suspect the "problem" has to do
with the fact that a simple loop has a cyclomatic complexity of one
(i.e., you achieve coverage of the loop by having a test case that
executes it), but may have a control mechanism that requires multiple
executions (e.g., entry of a minimum of two lines of address). In that
case, V(G) *doesn't* tell you how many iterations you need to execute;
in principle, you only need one for coverage, but in practice, if you
could get away with a single pass of the loop, you'd have found a bug
intended iterations (e.g., no fewer than two lines of address, and no
more than five), individual test cases are desirable to explore the
boundary cases (one line, two lines, five lines, six lines). But this
is getting away from basis set testing.
I hope this mini-essay has clarified things, Bob. Any questions?
========================================================================
SR's Technology Resources
TestWorks users and others in software quality can take advantage of the
technical resources at the "Software Quality Portal," Your Door to
Software Quality:
Software Quality HotList, over 2400 links to technical resources in
software quality and testing.
<http://www.soft.com/Institute/HotList/index.html>
o Spin up on the latest technology at SR/Institute's Quality Week
Conferences:
o Quality Week '99 (QW'99), being held 24-28 May 1999 in San Jose,
California USA
<http://www.soft.com/QualWeek/QW99/index.html>
o Quality Week/Europe '99 (QW'99) to be held in 1-5 November in
Brussels, Belgium.
<http://www.soft.com/QualWeek/QWE99/index.html>
o Quality Week/Europe '98 (QWE'98) held in November 1998 in
Brussels, Belgium.
<http://www.soft.com/QualWeek/QWE98/index.html>
o Quality Week '98 (QW'98) held in May 1998 in San Francisco,
California.
<http://www.soft.com/QualWeek/QW98/index.html>
o Study the "Top 96" QualitySource reference books.
<http://www.soft.com/Institute/QualitySource/kits.html>
o Find test technology terms in SR's TestWorks/Testing Glossary.
<http://www.soft.com/Technology/glossary.html>
o Study software processes with the TestWorks Quality Index;
<http://www.soft.com/AppNotes/TestWorksIndex/index.html>
o Note the the effectiveness survey in Software Quality Filters.
<http://www.soft.com/TestWorksIndex/filters.html>
o Apply TestWorks Products
<http://www.soft.com/Products/index.html>
and TestWorks Technology
<http://www.soft.com/Technology/faq.html>
to Windows and UNIX regression suite, coverage analysis, and
metrics/advisory projects.
If you don't find the answers to your questions, please E-mail us at
info@soft.com
========================================================================
Compatibility and Security Testing of Web-Based Applications
By Tim Van Tongeren
Introduction
Testing a web application is a lot like testing a non-web application.
You still have to test the functionality, usability, etc., but there are
new areas of risk, as well. This article will guide you through two
web-specific areas: compatibility and security.
Compatibility
One of the main benefits of releasing a web-based application is
platform independence. This means that a UNIX user, PC user and MAC user
can all use the application. However, some sites are not compatible with
all computers. If your target audience will be using a variety of
systems, you need to verify that your application will work on each
system. You will need to try every operating system, browser, video
setting and modem speed. And you will need to try combinations, thereof.
-Operating systems
Does the site work for both MAC and IBM Compatibles? Some fonts are not
available on both systems, so make sure that secondary fonts are
selected. Make sure that the site doesn't use plug-ins only available
for one OS, if your users will use both.
-Browsers
Does your site work with Netscape? Internet Explorer? Lynx? Some HTML
commands or scripts only work for certain browsers. Make sure there are
alternate tags for images, in case someone is using a text browser. If
you're using SSL security, you only need to check browsers 3.0 and
higher, but verify that there is a message for those using older
browsers.
-Video settings
Does the layout still look good on 640x400 or 600x800? Are fonts too
small to read? Are they too big? Does all the text and graphic alignment
still work?
-Modem/connection speeds
Does it take 10 minutes to load a page with a 28.8 modem, but you tested
hooked up to a T1? Users will expect long download times when they are
grabbing documents or demos, but not on the front page. Make sure that
the images aren't too large. Make sure that marketing didn't put 50k of
font size -6 keywords for search engines.
-Printers
Users like to print. The web should save paper and reduce printing, but
most people would still rather read on paper than on the screen. So, you
need to verify that the pages print properly. Sometimes images and text
align on the screen differently than on the printed page. You need to at
least verify that order confirmation screens can be printed properly.
-Combinations
Now you get to try combinations. Maybe 600x800 looks good on the MAC but
not on the IBM. Maybe IBM with Netscape works, but not with Lynx.
If the web site will be used internally it might make testing a little
easier. If the company has an official web browser choice, then you just
need to verify that it works for that browser. If everyone has a T1
connection, then you might not need to check load times. (But keep in
mind, some people may dial in from home.) With internal applications,
the development team can make disclaimers about system requirements and
only support those systems setups. But, ideally, the site should work on
all machines so you don't limit growth and changes in the future.
Security
When companies release applications as a stand-alone executable, they do
not necessarily give access to their server and the data on that server.
However, web based applications do just that. Even if you aren't
accepting credit card payments, security is very important. The web site
will be the only exposure some customers have to your company. And, if
that exposure is a hacked page, they won't feel safe doing business with
you.
-Directory setup
The most elementary step of web security is proper setup of directories.
Each directory should have an index.html, default.html or main.html page
so a directory listing doesn't appear.
One company I was consulting for didn't observe this principal. I right
clicked on an image and found the path "...com/objects/images". I went
to that directory manually and found a complete listing of the images on
that site. That wasn't too important. Next, I went to the directory
below that: "...com/objects" and I hit the jackpot. There were plenty of
goodies, but one thing that caught my eye was the listing of historical
pages. They had changed their prices every month and kept the old pages.
If a potential customer did a little browsing first, they would have a
definite advantage at the bargaining table.
-SSL
Many sites use SSL for secure transactions. You know you entered an SSL
site because there will be a browser warning and the HTTP in the
location field on the browser will change to HTTPS. If your development
group uses SSL you need to make sure there is an alternate page for
browser with versions less than 3.0, since SSL is not compatible with
those browsers. You also need to make sure that there are warnings when
you enter and leave the secured site. Is there a timeout limit? What
happens if the user tries a transaction after the timeout?
-Logins
In order to validate users, several sites require customers to login.
This makes it easier for the customer since they don't have to re-enter
personal information every time. You need to verify that the system does
not allow invalid usernames/password and that it does allow valid
logins. Is there a maximum number of failed logins allowed before the
server locks out the current user? Is the lockout based on IP? What if
the maximum failed login attempts is three, and you try three, but then
enter a valid login? What are the rules for password selection?
-Log files
Behind the scenes, you will need to verify that server logs are working
properly. Does the log track every transaction? Does it track
unsuccessful login attempts? Does it only track stolen credit card
usage? What does it store for each transaction? IP address? User name?
-Scripting languages
Scripting languages are a constant source of security holes. The details
are different for each language. Some allow access to the root
directory. Others only allow access to the mail server, but a
resourceful hacker could mail the servers username and password files to
themselves. Find out what scripting languages are being used and
research the loopholes. It might also be a good idea to subscribe to a
security newsgroup that discusses the language you will be testing.
Conclusion
In general, web testing should not be feared. Most of the test cases
will be similar to a non-web-based application. With the proper
knowledge about web-specific nuances, testers should feel confident to
enter this new domain of testing.
Tim Van Tongeren is a senior software quality assurance analyst with
experience on several Fortune 100 and 500 projects in the telecomm,
finance and distribution industries.
========================================================================
TOOLS USA '99
Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems
"DELIVERING QUALITY SOFTWARE"
Santa Barbara, Calif., August 1-5, 1999
Fess Parker's Double Tree Resort
http://www.tools.com/usa
Program Chair: Donald Firesmith, Storage Technology Corp., USA Tutorial
Chair: Richard Riehle, AdaWorks, USA Workshop & Panel Chair: Gilda Pour,
San Jose State University, USA Conference Chair: Bertrand Meyer, ISE,
USA
PROGRAM COMMITTEE Nadia Adhami, Countrywide, USA Jan Bosch, University
of Karlskrona/Ronneby, Sweden Benjamin Brosgol, Aonix, USA Alistair
Cockburn, Humans and Technology, USA Derek Coleman, Hewlett-Packard, USA
Raimund K. Ege, Florida International University, USA Martin Griss,
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, USA Brian Henderson-Sellers, University of
Sydney, Australia Laura Hill, Sun Microsystems, USA Eric Jul, University
of Copenhagen, Denmark Stuart Kent, University of Brighton, UK Reto
Kramer, Cambridge Technology Partners, Switzerland Qiaoyun Li, Sony
Electronics Inc., USA Robert Marcus, General Motors, USA John McGregor,
Software Architects, USA James C. McKim, Rensselaer at Hartford, USA
Christine Mingins, Monash University, Australia Michael Philippsen,
University of Karlsruhe, Germany Reinhold Ploesch, Johannes Kepler
University, Austria Bran Selic, ObjecTime Limited, Canada Frank Tip, IBM
T.J. Watson Research Center, USA
TECHNICAL PAPERS
TOOLS USA '99 is now soliciting papers on all aspects of object-oriented
technology. All submitted papers will be refereed and judged by the
International Program Committee, not only according to standards of
technical quality but also on their usefulness to practitioners and
applied researchers. TOOLS USA '99 will feature a special emphasis on
issues relating to the challenges of ensuring the quality of delivered
applications. Technical papers that report and assess advances and
experiences in this area are expressly sought.
A non-exhaustive list of topics includes:
- Ensuring the quality of delivered applications throughout the life cycle
- OO verification and testing techniques
- Specification and modeling methods and techniques
- Components, frameworks, and reuse
- Distributed and intelligent objects and agents
- Standardization of languages and methods
- Management, migration, and training issues
- Experience reports with OO technology
In the first phase, an abstract of the paper must be submitted by
electronic mail to tools-usa-abstracts@tools.com no later than February
26, 1999. Subsequently, the full paper, in the range of 10 to 20
double-spaced pages (10,000 to 20,000 words), should be submitted
electronically to tools-usa-submissions@tools.com or in hard copy, to
arrive no later than March 5, 1999.
The proceedings of the 30th TOOLS Conference will be published by IEEE
Computer Society Press. Final camera-ready versions of accepted papers
will therefore be required to adhere to the IEEE publication format
(guidelines available soon), and will contain no more than 10 pages.
PROPOSALS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO:
Donald Firesmith
TOOLS USA '99 Program Chair
Storage Technology Corporation
2270 South 88th Street
Louisville, Colorado 80028-5210 USA
Phone: +1-303-661-5943
Donald_Firesmith@stortek.com
(for contact only, see above for electronic submission addresses)
========================================================================
Call for Papers for
Web Engineering
Part of the Internet and the Digital Economy Track
of the Thirty-third Annual
Hawai'i International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS)
Maui, HI - January 4 - 7, 2000
The Minitrack's major focus is on the design of Web applications,
especially on processes, models and methods for designing these kind of
applications. An active discussion with focus on Web engineering and
its influence on other communities is anticipated by also inviting
papers on inter-disciplined topics.
Some of the topics to be discussed are the following (the list is not
exhaustive):
- Design Models & Methods for Hypermedia
- Development Process for Hypermedia and Web Software
- Multidisciplinarity of Web Software Process
- Delivery of Applications over the Web
- Web Design Pattern & Web Pattern Mining
- Bridging gap between Web Design and Implementation
- Frameworks & Architectures for Web-based systems
- OO- and Component-Technology for the Web
- Component-based Web Engineering
- Evolution of Web-based Systems
Minitrack Chairs
Martin Gaedke
Telecooperation Office (TecO)
University of Karlsruhe
Vincenz-Priessnitz Str.1
76131 Karlsruhe
Germany
Ph.: +49 (721) 6902-79
Fax: +49 (721) 6902-16
e-mail: gaedke@teco.edu
Daniel Schwabe
Departamento de Informatica
University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-RIO)
R. M. de S. Vicente, 225
Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900
Brasil
e-mail: schwabe@inf.puc-rio.br
Gustavo Rossi
LIFIA-UNLP
University of La Plata
Calle 9, Nro 124.
(1900) La Plata
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Ph.: +54 (221) 4236585
e-mail: gustavo@sol.info.unlp.edu.ar
Hans-W. Gellersen
Telecooperation Office (TecO)
University of Karlsruhe
Vincenz-Priessnitz Str.1
76131 Karlsruhe
Germany
Ph.: +49 (721) 6902-49
Fax: +49 (721) 6902-16
e-mail: hwg@teco.edu
Deadlines:
March 15, 1999: 300-word abstract submitted to track chairs or minitrack
chairs for guidance and indication of appropriate content.
June 1, 1999: Full papers submitted to the appropriate minitrack chair
Aug. 31, 1999: Minitrack Chair sends notice of accepted papers to
Authors.
Oct. 1, 1999: Accepted manuscripts, camera-ready, sent to minitrack
chair; one author MUST register by this time.
Nov. 1, 1999: Registration and payment for all others. Registrations
received after this deadline may not be accepted due to space
limitations.
HICSS-33 consists of eight tracks:
Collaboration Systems and Technology Track
Decision Technologies for Management
Digital Documents Track
Emerging Technologies Track
Information Technology in Health Care Track
Internet and the Digital Economy
Organizational Systems and Technology Track
Software Technology Track
For more information about these tracks and a list of minitracks each
consist of, please check the HICSS web page for full listing of the
minitracks:
http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu
Or contact the Track Administrator, Eileen Dennis, at edennis@uga.edu
========================================================================
------------>>> TTN SUBMITTAL POLICY <<<------------
========================================================================
The TTN Online Edition is E-mailed around the 15th of each month to
subscribers worldwide. To have your event listed in an upcoming issue
E-mail a complete description and full details of your Call for Papers
or Call for Participation to "ttn@soft.com".
TTN On-Line's submittal policy is as follows:
o Submission deadlines indicated in "Calls for Papers" should provide at
least a 1-month lead time from the TTN On-Line issue date. For
example, submission deadlines for "Calls for Papers" in the January
issue of TTN On-Line would be for February and beyond.
o Length of submitted non-calendar items should not exceed 350 lines
(about four pages). Longer articles are OK and may be serialized.
o Length of submitted calendar items should not exceed 60 lines (one
page).
o Publication of submitted items is determined by Software Research,
Inc. and may be edited for style and content as necessary.
DISCLAIMER: Articles and items are the opinions of their authors or
submitters; TTN-Online disclaims any responsibility for their content.
TRADEMARKS: STW, TestWorks, CAPBAK, SMARTS, EXDIFF, Xdemo, Xvirtual,
Xflight, STW/Regression, STW/Coverage, STW/Advisor, TCAT, TCAT-PATH, T-
SCOPE and the SR logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Software Research, Inc. All other systems are either trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective companies.
========================================================================
----------------->>> TTN SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION <<<-----------------
========================================================================
To SUBSCRIBE to TTN-Online, to CANCEL a current subscription, to CHANGE
an address (a CANCEL and a SUBSCRIBE combined) or to submit or propose
an article, use the convenient Subscribe/Unsubscribe facility at
<http://www.soft.com/News/TTN-Online>. Or, send E-mail to
"ttn@soft.com" as follows:
TO SUBSCRIBE: Include in the body the phrase "subscribe {your-E-
mail-address}".
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Include in the body the phrase "unsubscribe {your-E-
mail-address}".
QUALITY TECHNIQUES NEWSLETTER
Software Research, Inc.
1663 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103 USA
Phone: +1 (415) 861-2800
Toll Free: +1 (800) 942-SOFT (USA Only)
Fax: +1 (415) 861-9801
Email: qtn@soft.com
Web: <http://www.soft.com/News/QTN-Online>
## End ##