Stress majorization is an optimization strategy used in multidimensional scaling (MDS) where, for a set of n {\displaystyle n} m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional data items, a configuration X {\displaystyle X} of n {\displaystyle n} points in r {\displaystyle r} ( ≪ m ) {\displaystyle (\ll m)} -dimensional space is sought that minimizes the so-called stress function σ ( X ) {\displaystyle \sigma (X)} . Usually r {\displaystyle r} is 2 {\displaystyle 2} or 3 {\displaystyle 3} , i.e. the ( n × r ) {\displaystyle (n\times r)} matrix X {\displaystyle X} lists points in 2 − {\displaystyle 2-} or 3 − {\displaystyle 3-} dimensional Euclidean space so that the result may be visualised (i.e. an MDS plot). The function σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a cost or loss function that measures the squared differences between ideal ( m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional) distances and actual distances in r-dimensional space. It is defined as: σ ( X ) = ∑ i < j ≤ n w i j ( d i j ( X ) − δ i j ) 2 {\displaystyle \sigma (X)=\sum _{i Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (formerly known as Vertex AI) is a managed machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) platform developed by Google Cloud. It provides a unified environment for building, training, deploying, and scaling ML models and generative AI applications. The platform integrates tools for the full ML lifecycle, including data preparation, model training, evaluation, deployment, and monitoring, under a single API and user interface. Vertex AI was announced at Google I/O and released as a generally available product on May 18, 2021. At launch, Google described Vertex AI as unifying its AutoML offerings with its prior Cloud AI Platform capabilities, and as adding operational features intended to help teams move models from experimentation into production use. On April 22, 2026, Google announced Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform as the replacement evolution of Vertex AI. == History == Google Cloud announced the general availability of Vertex AI on May 18, 2021, at the Google I/O developer conference. The platform was designed to consolidate Google Cloud's previously separate ML offerings, including AutoML and the legacy AI Platform, into a single system. At launch, Google claimed that Vertex AI required roughly 80% fewer lines of code to train a model compared to competing platforms. In June 2023, Google made generative AI support in Vertex AI generally available, giving developers access to foundation models including PaLM 2, Imagen, and Codey through the platform's Model Garden and the newly launched Generative AI Studio. At the time of this launch, Model Garden included over 60 models from Google and its partners. In August 2023, at the Google Cloud Next conference, Google announced further updates to Vertex AI, including the addition of third-party models such as Claude 2 from Anthropic and Llama 2 from Meta to the Model Garden, as well as new tools called Vertex AI Extensions for connecting models to APIs for real-time data retrieval. At the same event, Vertex AI Search and Conversation were made generally available, providing enterprise search and chatbot capabilities powered by foundation models. In April 2024, at Google Cloud Next, the company introduced Vertex AI Agent Builder, a no-code tool for creating AI-powered conversational agents built on top of Gemini large language models. This brought together the existing Vertex AI Search and Conversation products with new developer tools for building generative AI experiences. == Features == === Model training === Vertex AI supports both AutoML, which enables code-free model training on tabular, image, text, or video data, and custom training, which gives users full control over the ML framework, training code, and hyperparameter tuning. The platform provides serverless training as well as dedicated training clusters with GPU and TPU accelerators. Vertex AI Vizier handles automatic hyperparameter tuning, and Vertex AI Experiments allows comparison and tracking of training runs. === Model Garden === The Vertex AI Model Garden is a curated catalog of over 200 enterprise-ready models, including Google's own foundation models (such as Gemini, Imagen, and Veo), third-party models (such as Anthropic's Claude and Mistral AI models), and popular open-source models (such as Llama and Gemma). Models are accessible as fully managed model-as-a-service APIs. === Pipelines (workflow orchestration) === Vertex AI Pipelines provides managed orchestration of ML workflows and supports pipelines built with the Kubeflow Pipelines SDK, among other options described in Google Cloud documentation. === Vertex AI Studio === Vertex AI Studio provides tools for prompt design, testing, and model management, allowing developers to prototype and build generative AI applications using natural language, code, images, or video. === Agent Builder and Agent Engine === Vertex AI Agent Builder is a suite of products for building, deploying, and governing AI agents in production environments. It supports development with the open-source Agent Development Kit (ADK) and other frameworks. Vertex AI Agent Engine provides the underlying infrastructure for deploying and scaling agents, with support for enterprise security features including HIPAA compliance, customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK), and VPC Service Controls. === Generative AI tooling and model access === Google markets Vertex AI as providing access to Google foundation models (including the Gemini family) and developer tools such as Vertex AI Studio, along with a model catalog that includes Google and selected open source models (marketed as "Model Garden"). Google has also offered products within Vertex AI aimed at building generative search and conversational applications, including offerings named "Vertex AI Search" and "Vertex AI Conversation" as reported in 2023 coverage of platform updates. === MLOps tools === The platform includes a range of MLOps capabilities: Vertex AI Pipelines for orchestrating and automating ML workflows as reusable pipelines. Vertex AI Feature Store for serving, sharing, and reusing ML features across projects. Vertex AI Model Registry for storing, versioning, and managing trained models. Vertex AI Model Monitoring for detecting training-serving skew and inference drift in deployed models. Vertex Explainable AI for interpreting model predictions. Vertex AI Workbench for managed JupyterLab notebook environments integrated with Google Cloud Storage and BigQuery. == Industry recognition == Google was named a Leader for the fifth consecutive year in the 2024 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cloud AI Developer Services, a recognition that encompasses Vertex AI and its related offerings. Google was also recognized as a Leader in the 2024 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Science and Machine Learning Platforms and was named a Leader in the Forrester Wave for AI/ML Platforms, Q3 2024. In October 2025, Google was also named a Leader in the 2025 IDC (International Data Corporation) MarketScape for Worldwide GenAI Life-Cycle Foundation Model Software. == Pricing == Vertex AI uses a pay-as-you-go pricing model, with costs determined by the specific services consumed, including model training, prediction serving, and data storage. For generative AI tasks, pricing is based on a per-token model, with rates varying depending on the specific model used and whether tokens are input or output. Google offers a free tier for new users, which includes limited custom training hours and online prediction usage, along with an introductory US$300 in Google Cloud credits valid for 90 days. == Adoption == In the year following its 2021 launch, Google reported that usage of Vertex AI and BigQuery had driven 2.5 times more machine learning predictions compared to the prior year, and that active customers of Vertex AI Workbench had grown 25-fold over a six-month period. Early enterprise adopters included Ford, Wayfair, and Seagate, among others. Wayfair reported that it was able to run large model training jobs 5 to 10 times faster using the platform. In cryptography, plaintext usually means unencrypted information pending input into cryptographic algorithms, usually encryption algorithms. This usually refers to data that is transmitted or stored unencrypted. == Overview == With the advent of computing, the term plaintext expanded beyond human-readable documents to mean any data, including binary files, in a form that can be viewed or used without requiring a key or other decryption device. Information—a message, document, file, etc.—if to be communicated or stored in an unencrypted form is referred to as plaintext. Plaintext is used as input to an encryption algorithm; the output is usually termed ciphertext, particularly when the algorithm is a cipher. Codetext is less often used, and almost always only when the algorithm involved is actually a code. Some systems use multiple layers of encryption, with the output of one encryption algorithm becoming "plaintext" input for the next. == Secure handling == Insecure handling of plaintext can introduce weaknesses into a cryptosystem by letting an attacker bypass the cryptography altogether. Plaintext is vulnerable in use and in storage, whether in electronic or paper format. Physical security means the securing of information and its storage media from physical, attack—for instance by someone entering a building to access papers, storage media, or computers. Discarded material, if not disposed of securely, may be a security risk. Even shredded documents and erased magnetic media might be reconstructed with sufficient effort. If plaintext is stored in a computer file, the storage media, the computer and its components, and all backups must be secure. Sensitive data is sometimes processed on computers whose mass storage is removable, in which case physical security of the removed disk is vital. In the case of securing a computer, useful (as opposed to handwaving) security must be physical (e.g., against burglary, brazen removal under cover of supposed repair, installation of covert monitoring devices, etc.), as well as virtual (e.g., operating system modification, illicit network access, Trojan programs). Wide availability of keydrives, which can plug into most modern computers and store large quantities of data, poses another severe security headache. A spy (perhaps posing as a cleaning person) could easily conceal one, and even swallow it if necessary. Discarded computers, disk drives and media are also a potential source of plaintexts. Most operating systems do not actually erase anything— they simply mark the disk space occupied by a deleted file as 'available for use', and remove its entry from the file system directory. The information in a file deleted in this way remains fully present until overwritten at some later time when the operating system reuses the disk space. With even low-end computers commonly sold with many gigabytes of disk space and rising monthly, this 'later time' may be months later, or never. Even overwriting the portion of a disk surface occupied by a deleted file is insufficient in many cases. Peter Gutmann of the University of Auckland wrote a celebrated 1996 paper on the recovery of overwritten information from magnetic disks; areal storage densities have gotten much higher since then, so this sort of recovery is likely to be more difficult than it was when Gutmann wrote. Modern hard drives automatically remap failing sectors, moving data to good sectors. This process makes information on those failing, excluded sectors invisible to the file system and normal applications. Special software, however, can still extract information from them. Some government agencies (e.g., US NSA) require that personnel physically pulverize discarded disk drives and, in some cases, treat them with chemical corrosives. This practice is not widespread outside government, however. Garfinkel and Shelat (2003) analyzed 158 second-hand hard drives they acquired at garage sales and the like, and found that less than 10% had been sufficiently sanitized. The others contained a wide variety of readable personal and confidential information. See data remanence. Physical loss is a serious problem. The US State Department, Department of Defense, and the British Secret Service have all had laptops with secret information, including in plaintext, lost or stolen. Appropriate disk encryption techniques can safeguard data on misappropriated computers or media. On occasion, even when data on host systems is encrypted, media that personnel use to transfer data between systems is plaintext because of poorly designed data policy. For example, in October 2007, HM Revenue and Customs lost CDs that contained the unencrypted records of 25 million child benefit recipients in the United Kingdom. Modern cryptographic systems resist known plaintext or even chosen plaintext attacks, and so may not be entirely compromised when plaintext is lost or stolen. Older systems resisted the effects of plaintext data loss on security with less effective techniques—such as padding and Russian copulation to obscure information in plaintext that could be easily guessed. Outfit of the day (commonly abbreviated OOTD) is a phrase used online by users sharing what outfits (or "fits") they wear on a particular day or occasion. The video or post often mentions where each article of clothing, shoes, jewelry, and other accessories is from. OOTD posts are typically found on social media websites, such as Tumblr, Instagram, and Pinterest, and OOTD videos on YouTube and TikTok. Motives for sharing OOTD content vary, from encouraging viewers to buy a certain product, showing off personal style, or giving outfit inspiration. == History == "Outfit of the Day" videos started as early as 2010 but gained popularity in 2019. By 2016, the hashtag "OOTD" on Instagram had over 80 million posts. OOTD videos have become popular with the average internet user, as they express one's fashion sense and style to their followers. == Use in marketing == Brands will use famous influencers to promote their products using the "outfit of the day" tactic in hopes that users will buy the product to emulate the influencer. This tactic has increased sales for many brands. Creators of OOTD content can also profit, often through brand deals or affiliate links. Vogue has a recurring segment on YouTube that shows "Every outfit (fill in celebrity name here) wears in a week." == Variants == A variant is "outfit(s) of the week" (OOTW), where a user will share multiple outfits to be worn over the course of several days or a week. OOTDs are often seen in "Get ready with me" (GRWM) videos, where a user films their morning routine. In these videos, the filmers talk about their plans for the day, what makeup products they are using to get ready, and the "Outfit of the day" they are wearing. == Criticism == Some fashion writers have suggested that the proliferation of OOTD content encourages people to buy new clothing rather than to wear already owned items. Some stylists have also proposed that OOTD content encourages users to follow trends rather than explore and find their own style. Serge Belamant (born 1953) is a French-born South African entrepreneur best known for designing the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS) and the Chip Offline Pre-authorised Card (COPAC). He founded the cash-payments company Net1 UEPS Technologies in 1989, led it through dual listings on the NASDAQ and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, and oversaw the contentious welfare-payments contract with the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) until his retirement in 2017. Since 2018 he has been non-executive chair of London-based buy-now-pay-later fintech Zilch. == Early life and education == Belamant moved from France to South Africa with his family in 1967 and matriculated from Highlands North Boys' High School, Johannesburg. In 1972 he entered the University of the Witwatersrand to study civil engineering but switched to computer science and applied mathematics in his second year. He left the university without a degree and later took short courses in information systems at the University of South Africa (UNISA). == Early career and SASWITCH (1981–1989) == Belamant worked for Control Data Corporation as a systems analyst for a decade before joining SASWITCH Ltd in 1985. Economic sanctions had left the consortium's national ATM network dependent on unsupported Christian Rovsing computers. Belamant led a rebuild on fault-tolerant Stratus hardware and wrote protocol-translation software that allowed fourteen banks to connect without altering their host systems. By 1988 SASWITCH was handling about three million ATM transactions a month, according to the Competition Commission. The switch—now run by BankservAfrica—remains the backbone of South Africa's shared ATM network. == Net1 UEPS Technologies (1989–2017) == === Founding and UEPS === In 1989, Serge Belamant developed the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS), enabling secure, real-time transactions even in areas with limited connectivity. In the same year, he founded NET1 UEPS Technologies Inc., serving as its CEO and Director. === COPAC for VISA === In 1995, VISA tasked Belamant with designing the Chip Offline Pre-authorized Card (COPAC), a technology still widely used in chip-enabled credit and debit cards. A year later, he listed his company APLITEC (Applied Technology Holdings Limited) on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. === Listings and acquisitions === In 1999, Belamant acquired Cash Payment Services (CPS) from First National Bank of South Africa, modernizing its welfare payment system to serve millions in rural areas. In 2005, he led NET1 Technologies to an IPO, listing it as NET1 UEPS Technologies Inc. on the Nasdaq. A secondary listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) followed in 2008. === SASSA contract === Under Belamant's leadership, NET1 managed welfare payments for the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA), handling payments for over 10 million beneficiaries monthly. Despite criticism over handling the SASSA contract, investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the South African Constitutional Court found no wrongdoing. == Zilch (2018–present) == Belamant co-founded London-based "buy-now-pay-later" firm Zilch Technology in 2018 and serves as non-executive chair. Zilch reported £145 million in annual-recurring revenue and 4.5 million customers in January 2025. == Patents == Belamant is listed as inventor on more than a dozen payment-security patents, including: "Funds transfer system" (US RE36,788, 2000) – the basis for UEPS. "Financial transactions with a varying PIN" (WO 2014/037869, 2014). Evaluation of a binary classifier typically assigns a numerical value, or values, to a classifier that represent its accuracy. An example is error rate, which measures how frequently the classifier makes a mistake. There are many metrics that can be used; different fields have different preferences. For example, in medicine sensitivity and specificity are often used, while in computer science precision and recall are preferred. An important distinction is between metrics that are independent of the prevalence or skew (how often each class occurs in the population), and metrics that depend on the prevalence – both types are useful, but they have very different properties. Often, evaluation is used to compare two methods of classification, so that one can be adopted and the other discarded. Such comparisons are more directly achieved by a form of evaluation that results in a single unitary metric rather than a pair of metrics. == Contingency table == Given a data set, a classification (the output of a classifier on that set) gives two numbers: the number of positives and the number of negatives, which add up to the total size of the set. To evaluate a classifier, one compares its output to another reference classification – ideally a perfect classification, but in practice the output of another gold standard test – and cross tabulates the data into a 2×2 contingency table, comparing the two classifications. One then evaluates the classifier relative to the gold standard by computing summary statistics of these 4 numbers. Generally these statistics will be scale invariant (scaling all the numbers by the same factor does not change the output), to make them independent of population size, which is achieved by using ratios of homogeneous functions, most simply homogeneous linear or homogeneous quadratic functions. Say we test some people for the presence of a disease. Some of these people have the disease, and our test correctly says they are positive. They are called true positives (TP). Some have the disease, but the test incorrectly claims they don't. They are called false negatives (FN). Some don't have the disease, and the test says they don't – true negatives (TN). Finally, there might be healthy people who have a positive test result – false positives (FP). These can be arranged into a 2×2 contingency table (confusion matrix), conventionally with the test result on the vertical axis and the actual condition on the horizontal axis. These numbers can then be totaled, yielding both a grand total and marginal totals. Totaling the entire table, the number of true positives, false negatives, true negatives, and false positives add up to 100% of the set. Totaling the columns (adding vertically) the number of true positives and false positives add up to 100% of the test positives, and likewise for negatives. Totaling the rows (adding horizontally), the number of true positives and false negatives add up to 100% of the condition positives (conversely for negatives). The basic marginal ratio statistics are obtained by dividing the 2×2=4 values in the table by the marginal totals (either rows or columns), yielding 2 auxiliary 2×2 tables, for a total of 8 ratios. These ratios come in 4 complementary pairs, each pair summing to 1, and so each of these derived 2×2 tables can be summarized as a pair of 2 numbers, together with their complements. Further statistics can be obtained by taking ratios of these ratios, ratios of ratios, or more complicated functions. The contingency table and the most common derived ratios are summarized below; see sequel for details. Note that the rows correspond to the condition actually being positive or negative (or classified as such by the gold standard), as indicated by the color-coding, and the associated statistics are prevalence-independent, while the columns correspond to the test being positive or negative, and the associated statistics are prevalence-dependent. There are analogous likelihood ratios for prediction values, but these are less commonly used, and not depicted above. == Pairs of metrics == Often accuracy is evaluated with a pair of metrics composed in a standard pattern. === Sensitivity and specificity === The fundamental prevalence-independent statistics are sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity or True Positive Rate (TPR), also known as recall, is the proportion of people that tested positive and are positive (True Positive, TP) of all the people that actually are positive (Condition Positive, CP = TP + FN). It can be seen as the probability that the test is positive given that the patient is sick. With higher sensitivity, fewer actual cases of disease go undetected (or, in the case of the factory quality control, fewer faulty products go to the market). Specificity (SPC) or True Negative Rate (TNR) is the proportion of people that tested negative and are negative (True Negative, TN) of all the people that actually are negative (Condition Negative, CN = TN + FP). As with sensitivity, it can be looked at as the probability that the test result is negative given that the patient is not sick. With higher specificity, fewer healthy people are labeled as sick (or, in the factory case, fewer good products are discarded). The relationship between sensitivity and specificity, as well as the performance of the classifier, can be visualized and studied using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. In theory, sensitivity and specificity are independent in the sense that it is possible to achieve 100% in both (such as in the red/blue ball example given above). In more practical, less contrived instances, however, there is usually a trade-off, such that they are inversely proportional to one another to some extent. This is because we rarely measure the actual thing we would like to classify; rather, we generally measure an indicator of the thing we would like to classify, referred to as a surrogate marker. The reason why 100% is achievable in the ball example is because redness and blueness is determined by directly detecting redness and blueness. However, indicators are sometimes compromised, such as when non-indicators mimic indicators or when indicators are time-dependent, only becoming evident after a certain lag time. The following example of a pregnancy test will make use of such an indicator. Modern pregnancy tests do not use the pregnancy itself to determine pregnancy status; rather, human chorionic gonadotropin is used, or hCG, present in the urine of gravid females, as a surrogate marker to indicate that a woman is pregnant. Because hCG can also be produced by a tumor, the specificity of modern pregnancy tests cannot be 100% (because false positives are possible). Also, because hCG is present in the urine in such small concentrations after fertilization and early embryogenesis, the sensitivity of modern pregnancy tests cannot be 100% (because false negatives are possible). === Positive and negative predictive values === In addition to sensitivity and specificity, the performance of a binary classification test can be measured with positive predictive value (PPV), also known as precision, and negative predictive value (NPV). The positive prediction value answers the question "If the test result is positive, how well does that predict an actual presence of disease?". It is calculated as TP/(TP + FP); that is, it is the proportion of true positives out of all positive results. The negative prediction value is the same, but for negatives, naturally. ==== Impact of prevalence on predictive values ==== Prevalence has a significant impact on prediction values. As an example, suppose there is a test for a disease with 99% sensitivity and 99% specificity. If 2000 people are tested and the prevalence (in the sample) is 50%, 1000 of them are sick and 1000 of them are healthy. Thus about 990 true positives and 990 true negatives are likely, with 10 false positives and 10 false negatives. The positive and negative prediction values would be 99%, so there can be high confidence in the result. However, if the prevalence is only 5%, so of the 2000 people only 100 are really sick, then the prediction values change significantly. The likely result is 99 true positives, 1 false negative, 1881 true negatives and 19 false positives. Of the 19+99 people tested positive, only 99 really have the disease – that means, intuitively, that given that a patient's test result is positive, there is only 84% chance that they really have the disease. On the other hand, given that the patient's test result is negative, there is only 1 chance in 1882, or 0.05% probability, that the patient has the disease despite the test result. === Precision and recall === Precision and recall can be interpreted as (estimated) conditional probabilities: Precision is given by P ( C = P | C ^ = P ) {\displaystyle P(C=P|{\hat {C}}=P)} while recall is given by P ( C ^ = P | C = P ) {\displaystyle P({\hat {C}}=P|C=P)} , where C ^ {\ Computer-aided software engineering (CASE) is a domain of software tools used to design and implement applications. CASE tools are similar to and are partly inspired by computer-aided design (CAD) tools used for designing hardware products. CASE tools are intended to help develop high-quality, defect-free, and maintainable software. CASE software was often associated with methods for the development of information systems together with automated tools that could be used in the software development process. == History == The Information System Design and Optimization System (ISDOS) project, started in 1968 at the University of Michigan, initiated a great deal of interest in the whole concept of using computer systems to help analysts in the very difficult process of analysing requirements and developing systems. Several papers by Daniel Teichroew fired a whole generation of enthusiasts with the potential of automated systems development. His Problem Statement Language / Problem Statement Analyzer (PSL/PSA) tool was a CASE tool although it predated the term. Another major thread emerged as a logical extension to the data dictionary of a database. By extending the range of metadata held, the attributes of an application could be held within a dictionary and used at runtime. This "active dictionary" became the precursor to the more modern model-driven engineering capability. However, the active dictionary did not provide a graphical representation of any of the metadata. It was the linking of the concept of a dictionary holding analysts' metadata, as derived from the use of an integrated set of techniques, together with the graphical representation of such data that gave rise to the earlier versions of CASE. The next entrant into the market was Excelerator from Index Technology in Cambridge, Mass. While DesignAid ran on Convergent Technologies and later Burroughs Ngen networked microcomputers, Index launched Excelerator on the IBM PC/AT platform. While, at the time of launch, and for several years, the IBM platform did not support networking or a centralized database as did the Convergent Technologies or Burroughs machines, the allure of IBM was strong, and Excelerator came to prominence. Hot on the heels of Excelerator were a rash of offerings from companies such as Knowledgeware (James Martin, Fran Tarkenton and Don Addington), Texas Instrument's CA Gen and Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION toolset (DESIGN/1, INSTALL/1, FCP). CASE tools were at their peak in the early 1990s. According to the PC Magazine of January 1990, over 100 companies were offering nearly 200 different CASE tools. At the time IBM had proposed AD/Cycle, which was an alliance of software vendors centered on IBM's Software repository using IBM DB2 in mainframe and OS/2: The application development tools can be from several sources: from IBM, from vendors, and from the customers themselves. IBM has entered into relationships with Bachman Information Systems, Index Technology Corporation, and Knowledgeware wherein selected products from these vendors will be marketed through an IBM complementary marketing program to provide offerings that will help to achieve complete life-cycle coverage. With the decline of the mainframe, AD/Cycle and the Big CASE tools died off, opening the market for the mainstream CASE tools of today. Many of the leaders of the CASE market of the early 1990s ended up being purchased by Computer Associates, including IEW, IEF, ADW, Cayenne, and Learmonth & Burchett Management Systems (LBMS). The other trend that led to the evolution of CASE tools was the rise of object-oriented methods and tools. Most of the various tool vendors added some support for object-oriented methods and tools. In addition new products arose that were designed from the bottom up to support the object-oriented approach. Andersen developed its project Eagle as an alternative to Foundation. Several of the thought leaders in object-oriented development each developed their own methodology and CASE tool set: Jacobson, Rumbaugh, Booch, etc. Eventually, these diverse tool sets and methods were consolidated via standards led by the Object Management Group (OMG). The OMG's Unified Modelling Language (UML) is currently widely accepted as the industry standard for object-oriented modeling. == CASE software == === Tools === CASE tools support specific tasks in the software development life-cycle. They can be divided into the following categories: Business and analysis modeling: Graphical modeling tools. E.g., E/R modeling, object modeling, etc. Development: Design and construction phases of the life-cycle. Debugging environments. E.g., IISE LKO. Verification and validation: Analyze code and specifications for correctness, performance, etc. Configuration management: Control the check-in and check-out of repository objects and files. E.g., SCCS, IISE. Metrics and measurement: Analyze code for complexity, modularity (e.g., no "go to's"), performance, etc. Project management: Manage project plans, task assignments, scheduling. Another common way to distinguish CASE tools is the distinction between Upper CASE and Lower CASE. Upper CASE Tools support business and analysis modeling. They support traditional diagrammatic languages such as ER diagrams, Data flow diagram, Structure charts, Decision Trees, Decision tables, etc. Lower CASE Tools support development activities, such as physical design, debugging, construction, testing, component integration, maintenance, and reverse engineering. All other activities span the entire life-cycle and apply equally to upper and lower CASE. === Workbenches === Workbenches integrate two or more CASE tools and support specific software-process activities. Hence they achieve: A homogeneous and consistent interface (presentation integration) Seamless integration of tools and toolchains (control and data integration) An example workbench is Microsoft's Visual Basic programming environment. It incorporates several development tools: a GUI builder, a smart code editor, debugger, etc. Most commercial CASE products tended to be such workbenches that seamlessly integrated two or more tools. Workbenches also can be classified in the same manner as tools; as focusing on Analysis, Development, Verification, etc. as well as being focused on the upper case, lower case, or processes such as configuration management that span the complete life-cycle. === Environments === An environment is a collection of CASE tools or workbenches that attempts to support the complete software process. This contrasts with tools that focus on one specific task or a specific part of the life-cycle. CASE environments are classified by Fuggetta as follows: Toolkits: Loosely coupled collections of tools. These typically build on operating system workbenches such as the Unix Programmer's Workbench or the VMS VAX set. They typically perform integration via piping or some other basic mechanism to share data and pass control. The strength of easy integration is also one of the drawbacks. Simple passing of parameters via technologies such as shell scripting can't provide the kind of sophisticated integration that a common repository database can. Fourth generation: These environments are also known as 4GL standing for fourth generation language environments due to the fact that the early environments were designed around specific languages such as Visual Basic. They were the first environments to provide deep integration of multiple tools. Typically these environments were focused on specific types of applications. For example, user-interface driven applications that did standard atomic transactions to a relational database. Examples are Informix 4GL, and Focus. Language-centered: Environments based on a single often object-oriented language such as the Symbolics Lisp Genera environment or VisualWorks Smalltalk from Parcplace. In these environments all the operating system resources were objects in the object-oriented language. This provides powerful debugging and graphical opportunities but the code developed is mostly limited to the specific language. For this reason, these environments were mostly a niche within CASE. Their use was mostly for prototyping and R&D projects. A common core idea for these environments was the model–view–controller user interface that facilitated keeping multiple presentations of the same design consistent with the underlying model. The MVC architecture was adopted by the other types of CASE environments as well as many of the applications that were built with them. Integrated: These environments are an example of what most IT people tend to think of first when they think of CASE. Environments such as IBM's AD/Cycle, Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION, the ICL CADES system, and DEC Cohesion. These environments attempt to cover the complete life-cycle from analysis to maintenance and provide an integrated database repository for storing all artifacts of the software prGemini Enterprise Agent Platform
Plaintext
Outfit of the day
Serge Belamant
Evaluation of binary classifiers
Computer-aided software engineering