Software Theory of the Forbidden in a Discrete Design Space

Iaakov Exman

Abstract

There have been many formulations of “theories” of software systems with a variety of techniques, scopes and degrees of sophistication. But, one element is almost universally absent in all these theories: a clear delimitation of what is forbidden in terms of design. This absence is somewhat surprising, as in other engineering disciplines there are obvious forbidden domains. This paper proposes that in addition to common quality criteria for scientific theories – such as formality, universality and precision – an acceptable software theory should clearly demarcate the forbidden in contrast to the possible. This goal is attainable in small and discrete design space as it limits the amount of subspace search. Algebra is argued to be the mathematical field suitable to characterize forbidden domain boundaries, in particular using an eigenvectors approach. Boundaries are illustrated by a case study.

References

  1. Abbot, J. J., Marayong, P. and Okamura, A. M., 2007. Haptic Virtual Fixtures for Robot-Assisted Manipulation, Robotics Research, Vol. 28, Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, pp. 49-64, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540- 48113-3_5
  2. Devadas, V. and Aydin, H., 2008. Real-Time Dynamic Power Management through Device Forbidden Regions, in Proc. IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 34-44. DOI: DOI 10.1109/RTAS.2008.21
  3. Exman, I., 2012. Linear Software Models, Extended Abstract, in Ivar Jacobson, Michael Goedicke and Pontus Johnson (eds.), Proc. GTSE 2012, SEMAT Workshop on a General Theory of Software Engineering, pp. 23-24, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. Video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJfzArH8-ls
  4. Exman, I., 2014. Linear Software Models: Standard Modularity Highlights Residual Coupling, Int. Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 24, Issue 2, pp. 183-210. DOI: 10.1142/S0218194014500089
  5. Exman, I., 2015. Linear Software Models: Decoupled Modules from Modularity Matrix Eigenvectors, Int. Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 25, Issue 8, pp. 1395-1426. DOI: 10.1142/S0218194015500308
  6. Exman, I. and Sakhnini, R., 2016. Accepted for publication by Proc. ICSOFT'2016, 11th Int. Joint Conference on Software Technologies, Lisbon, Portugal.
  7. Exman, I. and Speicher, D., 2015. Linear Software Models: Equivalence of Modularity Matrix to its Modularity Lattice”, in Proc. 10th ICSOFT Int. Joint Conference on Software Technologies, Colmar, France, pp. 109-116, DOI:10.5220/0005557701090116
  8. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J., 1995. Design Patterns, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, USA.
  9. Li, X.-Y. Li and Guo, L., 2012. Constructing affinity matrix in spectral clustering based on neighbor propagation, Neurocomputing, Vol. 97, pp. 125-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2012.06.023
  10. Messiah, A., 1961. Quantum Mechanics, Vol. I, chapter III, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, Holland. Reprinted by Dover Publications (2014).
  11. Simon, H. A., 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 3rd edition.
  12. Slinky, 2016a. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slinky
  13. Slinky, 2016b. Wave Phase changes at fixed end http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/ slinkv.html#c1
  14. Standing wave, 2016a. https://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Standing_wave_2.gif
  15. Standing wave, 2016b. Standing waves on a Slinky,
  16. http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/slnksw.html#c1
  17. Sullivan, K. J., Griswold, W. G., Cai, Y. and Hallen, B., 2001. The Structure and Value of Modularity in Software Design, in Proc. ESEC/FSE 8th European Software Engineering Conf. and 9th SIGSOFT Int. Symp. Foundations Software Engineering, pp. 99-108, ACM. DOI: 10.1145/503209.503224.
  18. UML, 2015. Specification, OMG (Object Management Group). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/
  19. Weisstein, E. W., 2016. Laplacian Matrix, From Mathworld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplacianMatrix.html
  20. Wu, Y., Patel, J. M. and Jagadish, H. V., 2002. Estimating Answer Sizes for XML Queries, in Jensen, C.S. et al. (eds.), Advances in Database Technology - EDBT'2002, LNCS Vol. 2287, pp. 590-608, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45876- X_37
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Exman I. (2016). Software Theory of the Forbidden in a Discrete Design Space . In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies - Volume 2: ICSOFT-PT, (ICSOFT 2016) ISBN 978-989-758-194-6, pages 131-137. DOI: 10.5220/0006004601310137


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icsoft-pt16,
author={Iaakov Exman},
title={Software Theory of the Forbidden in a Discrete Design Space},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies - Volume 2: ICSOFT-PT, (ICSOFT 2016)},
year={2016},
pages={131-137},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006004601310137},
isbn={978-989-758-194-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies - Volume 2: ICSOFT-PT, (ICSOFT 2016)
TI - Software Theory of the Forbidden in a Discrete Design Space
SN - 978-989-758-194-6
AU - Exman I.
PY - 2016
SP - 131
EP - 137
DO - 10.5220/0006004601310137