Barbara Paech – författare

Thirty years ago, I first entered the dark realm of software engineering, through a prior interest in documentation. In those days, documentation pretty much meant functional specifications. The idea that stakeholders in a system (its implementers, its end-users, its maintainers, and so forth) might want something other than an alphabetic list of function definitions was just taking hold. There was an exciting (to me) vision of stakeholders accessing and contributing to explanations of how and why aspects of a system work as they do, tradeoff analysis of concomitant downsides, and perhaps even accounts of why other possible approaches were not followed. There were many challenges to overcome in achieving this vision. The most formidable is the belief that people do not like to create or use do- mentation. This negative image of documentation is (unfortunately) more than just the bias of a few incorrigible system developers. It is more like a deep truth about human information behavior, about how human beings construe and act towards information. Humans are, by default, active users of information; they want to try things out, and get things done. When documentation is interposed as a prerequisite between people and a desired activity, they try to skip through it, circumvent it, or undermine it. Desi- ing information to suit the needs and interests of its users is an abiding challenge, but we have come a long way from functional specifications as the only answer.

Thirty years ago, I first entered the dark realm of software engineering, through a prior interest in documentation. In those days, documentation pretty much meant functional specifications. The idea that stakeholders in a system (its implementers, its end-users, its maintainers, and so forth) might want something other than an alphabetic list of function definitions was just taking hold. There was an exciting (to me) vision of stakeholders accessing and contributing to explanations of how and why aspects of a system work as they do, tradeoff analysis of concomitant downsides, and perhaps even accounts of why other possible approaches were not followed. There were many challenges to overcome in achieving this vision. The most formidable is the belief that people do not like to create or use do- mentation. This negative image of documentation is (unfortunately) more than just the bias of a few incorrigible system developers. It is more like a deep truth about human information behavior, about how human beings construe and act towards information. Humans are, by default, active users of information; they want to try things out, and get things done. When documentation is interposed as a prerequisite between people and a desired activity, they try to skip through it, circumvent it, or undermine it. Desi- ing information to suit the needs and interests of its users is an abiding challenge, but we have come a long way from functional specifications as the only answer.

Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie prägen zunehmend unsere Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Ihre weite Verbreitung erfordert eine Softwareentwicklung, die nicht nur auf die Technologie, sondern auch auf die Besonderheiten der Anwendungsgebiete ausgerichtet ist. Das vorliegende Buch behandelt die Gestaltung von Softwaresystemen und ihren Umgebungszusammenhängen mit der Methode der Objekt- und Aufgabenorientierten Software-Entwicklung (OASE). Der Vorstellung der wesentlichen Konzepte folgt eine systematische Darstellung der vorhandenen Modellierungstechniken. Typische Methoden aus der Betriebswirtschaft, den Sozial- und Arbeitswissenschaften, der Softwareergonomie und des Software Engineering werden daraufhin untersucht, welchen Beitrag sie zur integrierten Modellierung und Gestaltung von Softwaresystemen leisten. OASE greift wesentliche Elemente dieser Methoden auf und vervollständigt sie zu einer durchgängigen Modellierung eines Anwendungs-, Nutzungs- und Softwaresystems.

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 14th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2008, held in Montpellier, France, in June 2008. The 17 revised full papers presented together with an introduction of the editors and the keynote lecture were carefully reviewed and selected from 50 submissions. The papers are organized in thematic sections on fitness of RE, requirements elicitation, industrial experience of RE, innovative systems, maturing research, and empirical studies.

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 14th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2008, held in Montpellier, France, in June 2008. The 17 revised full papers presented together with an introduction of the editors and the keynote lecture were carefully reviewed and selected from 50 submissions. The papers are organized in thematic sections on fitness of RE, requirements elicitation, industrial experience of RE, innovative systems, maturing research, and empirical studies.

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 13th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2007, held in Trondheim, Norway. It covers goal-driven requirements engineering (RE), products and product-lines, value-based RE and the value of RE, requirements elicitation, requirements specification, industrial experience of RE, and requirements quality and quality requirements.

Wearepleasedtopresenttheproceedingsofthe14thMontereyWorkshop,which tookplaceSeptember10–13,2007inMonterey,CA,USA. Inthispreface,wegive the reader an overview of what took place at the workshop and introduce the contributions in this Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume. A complete introduction to the theme of the workshop, as well as to the history of the Monterey Workshop series, can be found in Luqi and Kordon’s “Advances in Requirements Engineering: Bridging the Gap between Stakeholders’ Needs and Formal Designs” in this volume. This paper also contains the case study that many participants used as a problem to frame their analyses, and a summary of the workshop’s results. The workshop consisted of three keynote talks, three panels, presentations of peer-reviewed papers, as well as presentations of various position papers by the participants. The keynote speakers at this year’s workshop were Daniel Berry, Aravind Joshi, and Lori Clarke. Each of their talks was used to set the tone for the p- sentations and discussions for that particular day. Daniel Berry presented an overview of the needs and challenges of natural language processing in requi- ments engineering, with a special focus on ambiguity in his talk “Ambiguity in Natural Language Requirements. ” Aravind Joshi provided an overview of current natural language processing research in discourse analysis in the talk “Some Recent Developments in Natural Language Processing. ” Finally, Lori Clarke showed how to combine formal requirements speci?cation with natural language processing to cope with the complex domain of medical information processes in “Getting the Details Right.

Wearepleasedtopresenttheproceedingsofthe14thMontereyWorkshop,which tookplaceSeptember10–13,2007inMonterey,CA,USA. Inthispreface,wegive the reader an overview of what took place at the workshop and introduce the contributions in this Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume. A complete introduction to the theme of the workshop, as well as to the history of the Monterey Workshop series, can be found in Luqi and Kordon’s “Advances in Requirements Engineering: Bridging the Gap between Stakeholders’ Needs and Formal Designs” in this volume. This paper also contains the case study that many participants used as a problem to frame their analyses, and a summary of the workshop’s results. The workshop consisted of three keynote talks, three panels, presentations of peer-reviewed papers, as well as presentations of various position papers by the participants. The keynote speakers at this year’s workshop were Daniel Berry, Aravind Joshi, and Lori Clarke. Each of their talks was used to set the tone for the p- sentations and discussions for that particular day. Daniel Berry presented an overview of the needs and challenges of natural language processing in requi- ments engineering, with a special focus on ambiguity in his talk “Ambiguity in Natural Language Requirements. ” Aravind Joshi provided an overview of current natural language processing research in discourse analysis in the talk “Some Recent Developments in Natural Language Processing. ” Finally, Lori Clarke showed how to combine formal requirements speci?cation with natural language processing to cope with the complex domain of medical information processes in “Getting the Details Right.

Thirty years ago, I first entered the dark realm of software engineering, through a prior interest in documentation. In those days, documentation pretty much meant functional specifications. The idea that stakeholders in a system (its implementers, its end-users, its maintainers, and so forth) might want something other than an alphabetic list of function definitions was just taking hold. There was an exciting (to me) vision of stakeholders accessing and contributing to explanations of how and why aspects of a system work as they do, tradeoff analysis of concomitant downsides, and perhaps even accounts of why other possible approaches were not followed. There were many challenges to overcome in achieving this vision. The most formidable is the belief that people do not like to create or use do- mentation. This negative image of documentation is (unfortunately) more than just the bias of a few incorrigible system developers. It is more like a deep truth about human information behavior, about how human beings construe and act towards information. Humans are, by default, active users of information; they want to try things out, and get things done. When documentation is interposed as a prerequisite between people and a desired activity, they try to skip through it, circumvent it, or undermine it. Desi- ing information to suit the needs and interests of its users is an abiding challenge, but we have come a long way from functional specifications as the only answer.