The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The evolving philosophers problem: dynamic change management
Abstract
A model for dynamic change management which separates structural concerns from component application concerns is presented. This separation of concerns permits the formulation of general structural rules for change at the configuration level without the need to consider application state, and the specification of application component actions without prior knowledge of the actual structural changes which may be introduced. In addition, the changes can be applied in such a way so as to leave the modified system in a consistent state, and cause no disturbance to the unaffected part of the operational system. The model is applied to an example problem, 'evolving philosophers'. The principles of this model have been implemented and tested in the Conic environment for distributed systems.>
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Self-adaptive software: Landscape and research challenges
Salehie, M., & Tahvildari, L. (2009) · ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems · doi:10.1145/1516533.1516538 · Cited by 1,266
Metadata
- Authors
- Kramer, J., & Magee, J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 1990-11
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1293-1306
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- 2326-3881
- OpenAlex
- W2096910097
- Cited by
- 798
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
