DFDs:Evolutionary Status andA Cognitive Based Empirical Investigation of Level 0 DFD Clarity

The data flow diagram (DFD) has been a development, communication, and documentation technique in the systems analyst toolbox for almost two decades. Both surveys and expert opinion confirm that the data flow diagram is a popular and most preferred tool of its class structured analysis and design tools (Whitten,Bentley, & Ho, 1986, p.221). Recent surveys indicate as much as an 80% usage of DFDs (Jain & Purao, 1991; Martin, M., 1991, p.98). These surveys also indicate that of all the structured tools , the DFD is consistently used more than the others. Numerous authors attest to the DFD\u27s popularity (Vessey & Conger, 1994; Vessey, Jarvenpaa, & Tractinsky, 1992; France, 1992; Kung 1991; Abrahami 1993, Liu, 1993; Warren, Stott, & Norcio, 1991; Protsko, Sorenson, Tremblay, & Schaefer, 1991; Capron, 1986; Gore & Stubbe, 1988; Kendall & Kendall, 1988; Martin & McClure, 1985; Martin, M., 1991; Powers, Cheney, & Crow, 1990; Wetherbe, 1988; Whitten, Bentley, & Ho, 1986; Yourdon, 1989, etc)

Guidelines for the verification and validation of expert system software and conventional software: Bibliography. Volume 8

This volume contains all of the technical references found in Volumes 1-7 concerning the development of guidelines for the verification and validation of expert systems, knowledge-based systems, other AI systems, object-oriented systems, and conventional systems

NASA SBIR abstracts of 1990 phase 1 projects

The research objectives of the 280 projects placed under contract in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 1990 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase 1 program are described. The basic document consists of edited, non-proprietary abstracts of the winning proposals submitted by small businesses in response to NASA's 1990 SBIR Phase 1 Program Solicitation. The abstracts are presented under the 15 technical topics within which Phase 1 proposals were solicited. Each project was assigned a sequential identifying number from 001 to 280, in order of its appearance in the body of the report. The document also includes Appendixes to provide additional information about the SBIR program and permit cross-reference in the 1990 Phase 1 projects by company name, location by state, principal investigator, NASA field center responsible for management of each project, and NASA contract number

La Salle University Undergraduate Catalog 2015-2016

https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/course_catalogs/1201/thumbnail.jp

Guidelines for the verification and validation of expert system software and conventional software: Survey and assessment of conventional software verification and validation methods. Volume 2

By means of a literature survey, a comprehensive set of methods was identified for the verification and validation of conventional software. The 153 methods so identified were classified according to their appropriateness for various phases of a developmental life-cycle -- requirements, design, and implementation; the last category was subdivided into two, static testing and dynamic testing methods. The methods were then characterized in terms of eight rating factors, four concerning ease-of-use of the methods and four concerning the methods` power to detect defects. Based on these factors, two measurements were developed to permit quantitative comparisons among methods, a Cost-Benefit metric and an Effectiveness Metric. The Effectiveness Metric was further refined to provide three different estimates for each method, depending on three classes of needed stringency of V&V (determined by ratings of a system`s complexity and required-integrity). Methods were then rank-ordered for each of the three classes by terms of their overall cost-benefits and effectiveness. The applicability was then assessed of each for the identified components of knowledge-based and expert systems, as well as the system as a whole