
\section[Introduction]{}
%\frame{\tableofcontents}

\subsection{Sound bites} \frame {
  \frametitle{What you might recall in 12 months time...}

  \begin{itemize}
  \item<1-> Real world data collection:  more like ambulance chasing that bus driving.
  \item<2-> Accuracy, correlation and precision and not accurate or precise and correlate to any decision
  \item<3-> Static code attributes are a ``shallow well'': easy to get
to the bottom, harder to go further.
	\item<4-> We can talk, but will they listen? 
  \end{itemize}
}
\subsection{Background } \frame {
\begin{itemize}
\item From 1993 to 2008:
\begin{itemize}
\item
 NASA funded West Virginia University SE research
\item
 modeling of dynamic properties, 
\item
early lifecycle UML architectural analysis, 
\item
defect prediction
\item
etc
\end{itemize}
\item 2007:
\begin{itemize}
\item
 WVU one of the 50 most influencial SE schools in the world (\cite{ren07})
\item
WVU=\#45, NASA Ames=\#40
\item Ammar, Cukic, Goseva, Menzies
\end{itemize}
\item This talk: 
\begin{itemize}
\item
Some of those results (defect prediction)
\item Sadly, no audience at NASA
\item
More application in Turkey than U.S.A.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
}
\frame { \frametitle{What is ``Defect Prediction''}
\bi
\item
Given logs of ``modules'' described as static code modules ...
	\bi
	\item
	... joined to defect reports (often, discretized to $\{yes,no\}$);
	\item Using machine learning, find feature combinations that predict for $defective\in \{yes,no\}$;
	\ei
\item Q: Is this useful?
	\bi
	\item Does anyone actually use this?
	\ei
\item A: yes and yes (see below)
\ei
}
\frame { \frametitle{But Why Just Use Code Features?}
\bi
\item Q: Why not use ...
	\bi
	\item knowledge of the developers (\cite{nach08})
	\item  Or history of runtime defectives (\cite{musa87})
	\item Or XYZ?
	\ei
\item A1: Use what ever is available
	\bi
	\item And that changes from site to site
			\item Not what features ``are right'' but what features are available ``right now''
	\ei
\item A2: Recent IR  research:  ``mere'' symbol counts are useful
	\bi
	\item Letha Etzkorn: 
		\bi
		\item answer quality questions using deep knowledge of domain
		\ei
	\item Andi Marcus: 
		\bi
		\item with enough data, can do as well with ``mere'' symbol counts
		\item and you'll get there faster
		\ei
	\ei
\ei
}
\section{Real-World Data Collection}
\subsection{Classical View}
\frame { \frametitle{What We'd Like} 

  \begin{itemize}
  \item Ideally, data collection is a controlled process
  \item State goals, define collection method, ensure data quality 
  \item In stable orgaizaions, this ideal process is possible (\cite{basili02})
  \end{itemize}
}
\frame { \frametitle{Organizational Change = New and (?) Different Data}
{\tiny
\begin{tabular}{r|r@{~}l|p{1.5in}|l}
year & & \#IV\&V project  &   notes & oversight\\\hline
1988 &n/a & &Space shuttle begins IV\&V&Johnson (Texas)\\\hline
1991 &n/a& &New the IV\&V facility & Headquarters (east  coast)\\
1994 &1  &\rule{0.5mm}{1.5mm} &International space station IV\&V begins &\\
1995& 1 &\rule{0.5mm}{1.5mm}&&\\\hline
1996& 2 &\rule{1mm}{1.5mm}&&NASA Ames (west coast)\\
1996& 3 &\rule{1.5mm}{1.5mm}&
        IV\&V funded from project budgets &\\
1997& 3 &\rule{1.5mm}{1.5mm}&&\\
1998& 3 &\rule{1.5mm}{1.5mm}&&\\
1999& 12 &\rule{6mm}{1.5mm}& IV\&V now considered on all software&\\\hline
2000& 15&\rule{7.5mm}{1.5mm}& & GSFC (east coast)\\
2001& 20 &\rule{10mm}{1.5mm}&&\\
2002& 36&\rule{18mm}{1.5mm}&&\\
2003& 42 &\rule{21mm}{1.5mm}&IV\&V funded from  central agency source. &\\
2004& 37&\rule{13mm}{1.5mm}&&\\
2005& 24&\rule{12mm}{1.5mm}&SILAP data collection begins&\\
2006& 26&\rule{13mm}{1.5mm}&&\\
2007& 24&\rule{12mm}{1.5mm}&SILAP data collection ends&\\
\end{tabular}
}
\begin{itemize}
\item 2003: Loss of Columbia $\Rightarrow$ ``return to flight'' reorganiztion
\item 2004: Bush's new vision for space exploration
\item Always:  layers of contractors  (``oversight'', not ``insight'')
\end{itemize}
}

