Seminar: Softwareproduktlinien Marko Rosenmüller Norbert Siegmund Christian Kästner Gunter Saake...

Seminar: Softwareproduktlinien

Marko Rosenmüller

Norbert Siegmund

Christian Kästner

Gunter Saake

2008 / 2009

Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 2

Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake

Outline

• Aufbau eines Papers

• Bewertung



Why to write a paper

• Communicate new findings

• publication = ultimate result of scientific research

• research is never finished until it's published

• To let the community know about your work

• Recognition

• Contacts, fruitful collaborations

• Get feedback from peers

• external, independent, frank (anonymous)



What to write in a paper

• Write the paper for readers

• As communication between you and readers

• Consider their backgrounds

• With evaluation criteria in mind Original contribution Significant problem Significant solution Sound results High-quality presentation



Anatomy of a paper

• Title

• Abstract

• Introduction

• (Background)

• (Problem Statement)

• Body

• Evaluation

• Discussion

• Related Work

• Conclusion + Future Work

• References



Abstract

• Very brief summary of the paper

• Why is this work important, what was the motivation?

• Main contents, main results

• Typically one of the last things to write

• => Is this paper relevant for the reader?



Introduction

• What is the general problem? Why is it important?

• What is the specific problem? Why should the reader care?

• How is it different from prior work?

• What was the motivation for this work?

• What are the objectives/contributions? How is it new? What is the general approach/outline?

• Keep it short (approx. 1 column)



Background (if necessary)

• What is the necessary background to understand this work?

• In scientific papers usually very short.

• Know your audience!

• Only background that is really necessary!



Problem statement (if necessary)

• What is the specific problem? Why is it important?

• Example if necessary

• Sometimes necessary to tell the reader that there is a problem



The contribution

• Main part of the paper

• Describes the own approach, the innovation

• Readable, verifiable! Examples where necessary!



Evaluation / Proof

• Evaluation critical

• What is the evaluation criteria?

• Case studies? Empirical studies?

• Does your innovation scale up? Does it solve real problems?

• Report experience

• Readable, verifiable! Can be assessed and replayed

• Separate data from interpretation



Discussion (if appropriate)

• Interpret results

• Advantages and Disadvantages

• (Comparison to related approaches)

• Threats to validity



Related Work

• What are others doing?

• How is this work different?

• Common reviewer comments:

• “The paper omits important related work”

• “The authors describe the related work but don't compare their work”



Conclusion and Future Work

• Summary

• Results, what has been achieved

• What's missing? New research questions?

• Bigger context, long-term goals?



References

• Give credits to previous and contextual work

• Reference quotes, claims, previous results

• References must include

• Name of authors

• Title

• Journal, Conference, Publisher

• Volume, Edition, Pages

• Year



Für dieses Seminar

• Ausarbeitung über den aktuellen Stand und zukünftige Herausforderungen

• Überblick über das Themengebiet

• Verständlich für alle Teilnehmer des Seminars

• Gegebenenfalls Vergleich verschiedener Lösungen

• Pro/Contra Argumentation

• Offene Probleme / zukünftige Herausforderungen

• Aufbau: Einleitung, (Grundlagen), (Problembeschreibung), Hauptteil, offene Probleme, Zusammenfassung



Finding literature

• Library: Journals

• scholar.google.com

• ACM Digital Library

• CiteSeer

• dblp.uni-trier.de



Style

• Cohesion (Roter Faden)

• Line of thoughts

• Self-contained

• Say what you're saying before saying it

• Avoid mere description



Typical Problems

• missing motivation (why is it important?)

• unclear goal, unclear contribution

• missing reasoning (“thats the way I did it”)

• dead-end discussions, unused background

• missing cohesion

• bigger picture missing (just details)

• missing conclusions or results

• jargon, background missing

• related work missing



Typical comment patterns

• “the objectives are unclear”

• “too little beef”

• “the authors seem to ignore ...”

• “... so what?”

• “the paper fails to deliver what is promises”

• “unsubstantiated claims”

• “opinion paper...”

• “premature...”

• “the paper provides little evidence that the results do apply in real settings”, “scaleability is questionable”, etc

• “evaluation is weak”



Evaluation Criteria Paper

• Does the paper match the chosen topic?

• Do title and abstract reflect the content of the paper?

• Is the paper well structured?

• Is the motivation clear?

• Do sections contain the content promised in section titles?

• Is there a consistent recurring theme or does the author jump from idea to idea?

• Are all background information necessary for understanding the paper provided?

• Are there any unnecessary information/sections?

• Are arguments well supported by references? Are references complete and suited?

• Are examples/figures/tables used adequately to support understanding the paper?

• Is the reasoning of the paper correct?

• Is the paper well written (language, style)?



Evaluation Criteria Presentation

• Allgemeiner Eindruck (Körperhaltung, Blickkontakt, Sprechgeschwindigkeit, -lautstärke, Auftreten, Vorbereitung)

• Verständlichkeit • Motivation

• Zielgruppengerecht

• Abgeschlossen

• Schlüssigkeit

• Detail vs. “Big Picture” (Tiefe vs. Breite)

• Roter Faden

• Folien (Klarheit, Formatierung, Text-, Code-, Formelmenge, Visualisierung)

• Zeit

• Fragestunde

Seminar: Softwareproduktlinien Marko Rosenmüller Norbert Siegmund Christian Kästner Gunter Saake...

Documents

Transcript of Seminar: Softwareproduktlinien Marko Rosenmüller Norbert Siegmund Christian Kästner Gunter Saake...