CS/SE 6362 Term Project
Phase 2 Evaluation
Fall 2010
Student name: __________________________________
Submission: On time ________
General
/5
Project
/20
Late penalty ___
Score:
/25
General (5 points)
Presentation, submission (5)
- Overall organization, general technical writing quality
o Overall structure of the report is in place (title page, TOC, LOF, LOT, …)
o Writing style is appropriate for formal, technical writing
 Verb tense consistent, written in third person
 Spell check done
 Grammar check done
 Each figure and table has a caption; caption is referred to in the text
o References are in IEEE or ACM format
- majority of references included are for workshop, conference, journal articles (not websites,
whitepapers, etc.).
- submitted to e-learning system
Consistency with proposal
Explain, justify why modifications were needed, made (notation, tool, verification technique,
style selected)
For engineering projects (20 points)
Example system type and domain are clearly specified.
Requirements are “good”; verification techniques are clearly specified, with references (modified as
needed from phase 1 without penalty).
Architecture model
Static and dynamic views are presented
Notation selected is used correctly
Model is easy to read when printed out
One level of decomposition per figure, Font size of labels 10 pt-12 pt., Shading or color does
not make the model difficult to read
Paradigm specific architectural styles/patterns selected with references; justify selection (why is it a
good choice?)
Architectural style or pattern included as an Appendix
Instantiation of the architectural style or pattern is clear in figures
Layout of the architecture model for the example is similar to the architectural style or pattern
Naming convention of the architecture model for the example indicates the mapping from the
architectural style or pattern
Modifications to the architectural style or patterns are described, justified
Mapping of the architectural style or pattern to the example architecture is explained in text
Components and their interactions are clearly and completely described
Verification
Verification with respect to the requirements - technique is clearly presented, explained
Each requirement is verified
Any additional verification checks are described
Notations, tools, verification techniques are compatible.
For survey paper projects (20 points)
Topic is on recent paradigm, related to architecture and/or design.
Comparison criteria are clearly and precisely described, with references.
Summary table is in the Conclusion section, to be refined in phase 3.
Outline of paper has been substantially refined
- clearly indicates what will be covered, what will be compared, and that work is available to
support a survey paper ~45 references.
Approximately half of the main body of the paper has been written.
For each approach included in the survey so far, the comparison criteria are clearly and consistently
applied.
Figures from published material have been redrawn, original source of figure cited
Technical writing
Header/sub-header
- content of header/sub-headers matches title of header or sub-header
topic sentence
- content of paragraphs matches topic sentence
Citations, references are clearly assigned to support the outline topics, comparison criteria; approx. 20
references are cited so far.
Comments: see report.