Modelo arquitectónico desde la vista de información para apoyar la interoperabilidad de herramientas software que soportan la mejora de procesos de software

(Eng) Diverse software tools that support the software process improvement (SPI) not interoperate between them, that is to say, the exchange of information between the different tools is deficient, making it difficult to sequence and automatic re-use of information of SPI initiatives. In this article we present an architectural model from the information view to support the interoperability of software tools that support the stages of diagnosing the process and formulating improvements. The model establishes architecture that describes the type of information that can be exchanged these tools, as well as the structure of the data, their possible values, its semantics, and the restrictions imposed on the use and interpretation of such information. The architectural model is composed of a set of schemas, raised in conceptual form, which can be used by organizations that wish to develop software tools to interoperate, which provide support in a comprehensive way to diagnosing the process and formulating improvements of the SPI cycle. These schemas were evaluated using the qualitative method Focus Group.(Spa) La gran mayoría de herramientas software que soportan la mejora de procesos de software (SPI) no interoperan entre ellas, es decir, el intercambio de información entre las diferentes herramientas es deficiente, lo que dificulta la secuencia y reutilización automática de la información de las iniciativas de SPI. En este artículo presentamos un modelo arquitectónico desde la vista de información para apoyar la interoperabilidad de las herramientas software que soportan las etapas de Diagnóstico de procesos y Formulación de mejoras. El modelo establece la arquitectura que describe el tipo de información que pueden intercambiar estas herramientas, así como la estructura de los datos, sus posibles valores, su semántica, y las restricciones impuestas sobre la utilización e interpretación de dicha información. El modelo arquitectónico está constituido por un conjunto de esquemas planteados de forma conceptual, el cual puede ser utilizado por organizaciones que deseen desarrollar herramientas software que interoperen entre sí, las cuales brinden soporte de manera integral al Diagnóstico y Formulación del ciclo de SPI. Estos esquemas fueron evaluados utilizando el método cualitativo Focus Group

Asset Recovery and Incorporation into Product Lines

Software product lines aim in having a common platform from which several similar products can be derived. The elements of the platform are called assets and they are managed in an asset base being part of the product line infrastructure. The products are then built on top of the assets. Assets can include own developments, open source or third-party software modules, as well as design and project documents. In the context of the European-wide project FAMILIES we concentrated on techniques used to build the platform with focus on the recovery of these assets from existing systems. We present an approach on how to incorporate existing assets into the product line infrastructure. Thereby we explicitly distinguish the asset origins and the different information sources available. The incorporation is a quality-driven process that is backed up by a set of reverse engineering techniques to evaluate the asset’s internal quality. The quality assessment of an asset is the critical measurement for industrial development organizations in order to incorporate assets into their product line infrastructure

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events