Research on model-based development often reports on novel methods and techniques for model management and processing which are typically embodied in a tool. It promotes the use of models in all stages of development as a central means for abstraction and starting point for automation, e.g., for the sake of simulation, analysis or software production, with the ultimate goal of increasing productivity and quality.Ĭonsequently, model-based development strongly depends on good tool support to fully realize its manifold promises . Model-based development is a much appraised and promising methodology to tackle the complexity of modern software-intensive systems, notably for embedded systems in various domains such as transportation, telecommunications, or industrial automation . While we are convinced that this situation can only be improved as a community effort, this paper is meant to serve as starting point for discussion, based on the lessons learnt from our study. Given that tools are still being listed among the major obstacles of a more widespread adoption of model-based principles in practice, we see this as an alarming signal. We found none of the experimental results presented in these papers to be fully replicable, and 6% partially replicable. Given that both artifacts are needed for a replication study, only 9% of the tool evaluations presented in the examined papers can be classified to be replicable in principle. In a nutshell, we found that only 31% of the tools and 22% of the models used as experimental subjects are accessible. Our results from studying 65 research papers obtained through a systematic literature search are rather unsatisfactory. We investigate to which degree recent research reporting on novel methods, techniques, or algorithms supporting model-based development with MATLAB/Simulink meets the requirements for replicability of experimental results. Following principles of good scientific practice, both the tool and the models used in the experiments should be made available along with a paper, aiming at the replicability of experimental results. This is typically achieved by experimental evaluations. If you are having this issue, some futher investigation may be needed (eg the config file may not have suitable permissions set).Research on novel tools for model-based development differs from a mere engineering task by not only developing a new tool, but by providing some form of evidence that it is effective. It has been suggested that you may need to run both LyX and JabRef as administrator to get them to work, I didn't find this but its not impossible. You do not have to restart JabRef, just Just select some rows and click send to LyX and they will appear at the Cursor Set on JabRef Options, Preferences, Settings for LyX/Kyle, LyX Pipe: \\.\pipe\FOO (no.Set on LyX under Tools, Preference, External Tools" LyX Pipe: \\.\pipe\FOO.It is a special windows "Named Pipe".Ī named pipe must have the name \\.\pipe\FOO where FOO can be anything, but the first part: \\.\pipe\ must always be there. and Windows 10 tech preview, Lyx 2.1.3, and JabRef 2.10 Some people suggested it just didn't work on windows. I've been having this problem for years, so I sat down to finally figure it out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |