Seite - 145 - in The Future of Software Quality Assurance

Responsible Software Engineering 145 References 1. Unit,E.I.:The growingAC1 trillioneconomic impact of software. (2018) 2. Russo, D., Ciancarini, P.: A proposal for an antifragile software manifesto. Procedia Comput. Sci.83, 982–987 (2016) 3. Russo, D., Ciancarini, P.: Towards antifragile software architectures. Procedia Comput. Sci. 109, 929–934 (2017) 4. Osterweil,L.J.:What issoftware? Theroleofempiricalmethods inanswering thequestion. In: Münch,J.,Schmid,K.(eds.)PerspectivesontheFutureofSoftwareEngineering,pp.237–254. Springer, Berlin (2013) 5. Parnas, D.L., Madey, J.: Functional documents for computer systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 25(1), 41–61 (1995) 6. ISO/IEC: Information technology —Vocabulary. 2382. (2015) 7. Xia, W., Wen, Y., Foh, C.H., Niyato, D., Xie, H.: A survey on software-defined networking. IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. 17(1), 27–51 (2014) 8. Myers, B.A., Rosson, M.B.: Survey on user interface programming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (1992) 9. Forward, A., & Lethbridge, T.C.: The relevance of software documentation, tools and technologies: a survey. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on document engineering (2002) 10. Gordieiev, O., Kharchenko, V., Fominykh, N., Sklyar, V.: Evolution of software quality models in context of the standard ISO 25010. Paper presented at the proceedings of the ninth international conference on dependability and complex systems DepCoS-RELCOMEX, Brunów, Poland, 30 June–4 July 2014 (2014) 11. Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Lipow, M.: Quantitative evaluation of software quality. Paper presented at theProceedings of the2nd international conference on Software engineering, San Francisco, California, USA (1976) 12. Grady, R.B., Caswell, D.L.: Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-wide Program. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1987) 13. IEEE: Standard for Software Maintenance. (Std 1219). (1993) 14. Dromey, R.G.:Amodel for software product quality. IEEE Trans. Softw.Eng. 21(2), 146–162 (1995) 15. Hyatt, L.E., Rosenberg, L.H.: A software quality model and metrics for identifying project risks and assessing software quality. Paper presented at the product assurance symposium and software product assurance workshop (1996) 16. Seffah, A., Metzker, E.: The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Commun. ACM.47(12), 71–76 (2004) 17. Wang, R.Y., Strong, D.M.: Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.12(4), 5–33 (1996) 18. Pipino,L.L.,Lee,Y.W.,Wang,R.Y.:Dataqualityassessment.Commun.ACM.45(4), 211–218 (2002) 19. DiGironimo,G.,Lanzotti,A.,Vanacore,A.:Conceptdesignforquality invirtualenvironment. Comput. Graph. 30(6), 1011–1019 (2006) 20. Klinker, G., Stricker, D., Reiners, D.: Augmented reality: a balance act between high quality and real-time constraints. In: Ohta, Y., Tamura, H. (eds.) Mixed Reality: Merging Real and VirtualWorlds, pp.325–346. Springer, Berlin (1999) 21. Serrano, M., do Prado Leite, J.C.S.: Capturing transparency-related requirements patterns through argumentation. Paper presented at the 2011 first international workshop on require- mentspatterns (2011) 22. Schieferdecker, I., Messner, D.:The digitalised sustainability society. Germany and the World 2030. (2018) 23. WBGU: Our common digital future. German Advisory Council on Global Change, Berlin (2019)