Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267631
A. Abran, Asma Sellami
'Software metrics' are most often proposed as the measurement tools of choice in empirical studies in software engineering, and the field of 'software metrics' is most often discussed from the perspective referred to as 'measurement theory'. However, in other disciplines, it is the domain of knowledge referred to as 'metrology' that is the foundation for the development and use of measurement instruments and measurement processes. In this paper, our initial modeling of the sets of measurement concepts documented in the ISO International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology is used to investigate and position the measurement concepts referred to in the Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. This structured analysis reveals that much work remains to be done to introduce the full set of measurement and metrology concepts as fundamental tools for empirical studies in software engineering.
{"title":"Measurement and metrology requirements for empirical studies in software engineering","authors":"A. Abran, Asma Sellami","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267631","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267631","url":null,"abstract":"'Software metrics' are most often proposed as the measurement tools of choice in empirical studies in software engineering, and the field of 'software metrics' is most often discussed from the perspective referred to as 'measurement theory'. However, in other disciplines, it is the domain of knowledge referred to as 'metrology' that is the foundation for the development and use of measurement instruments and measurement processes. In this paper, our initial modeling of the sets of measurement concepts documented in the ISO International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology is used to investigate and position the measurement concepts referred to in the Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. This structured analysis reveals that much work remains to be done to introduce the full set of measurement and metrology concepts as fundamental tools for empirical studies in software engineering.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116755835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267597
F. Robert, A. Abran, P. Bourque
In May 2001, of the Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) was released in a Web format and, in December 2001, in book format with the intent to collect comments and possible improvements. Up to now, feedback received confirmed the usefulness of the guide for all documented knowledge areas, with the exception of the software construction knowledge area, for which the content does not map easily to industry practices or to actual academic curricula. After analysis of this specific SWEBOK knowledge area, some issues were identified, such as inconsistencies between the textual descriptions and the visual representations. Furthermore, analysis of this chapter using the Vincenti classification of engineering knowledge types allowed us to identify some additional weaknesses and provided us with guidance on how the structure of this chapter could be improved. This paper proposes a revised breakdown of topics that is more aligned with an engineering perspective.
{"title":"A technical review of the software construction knowledge area in the SWEBOK guide","authors":"F. Robert, A. Abran, P. Bourque","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267597","url":null,"abstract":"In May 2001, of the Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) was released in a Web format and, in December 2001, in book format with the intent to collect comments and possible improvements. Up to now, feedback received confirmed the usefulness of the guide for all documented knowledge areas, with the exception of the software construction knowledge area, for which the content does not map easily to industry practices or to actual academic curricula. After analysis of this specific SWEBOK knowledge area, some issues were identified, such as inconsistencies between the textual descriptions and the visual representations. Furthermore, analysis of this chapter using the Vincenti classification of engineering knowledge types allowed us to identify some additional weaknesses and provided us with guidance on how the structure of this chapter could be improved. This paper proposes a revised breakdown of topics that is more aligned with an engineering perspective.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127267899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267598
P. Brereton, N. Mehandjiev, P. Layzell
The theme of this workshop was to consider the future of software engineering as an interdisciplinary activity by (a) identifying and challenging the assumptions which drive current software engineering processes, and (b) drawing on the models and techniques which are used in cognate, related disciplines, in order to transform software engineering into a more holistic, interdisciplinary activity which breaks down rigid barriers between disciplines, representations and processes.
{"title":"Interdisciplinary software engineering","authors":"P. Brereton, N. Mehandjiev, P. Layzell","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267598","url":null,"abstract":"The theme of this workshop was to consider the future of software engineering as an interdisciplinary activity by (a) identifying and challenging the assumptions which drive current software engineering processes, and (b) drawing on the models and techniques which are used in cognate, related disciplines, in order to transform software engineering into a more holistic, interdisciplinary activity which breaks down rigid barriers between disciplines, representations and processes.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125071698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267596
D.J. Bagert, M. Barbacci, D. Budgen, T. Lethbridge, W. Suryn, H. van Vliet
SWEBOK describes what knowledge a software engineer who has a Bachelor's degree and four years of experience should have. SEEK describes the knowledge to be taught in an undergraduate program in software engineering. Although different in scope and purpose, there are many similarities between the two, and after all, even experienced developers need an education, don't they? A full-day workshop on the alignment between SWEBOK and SEEK, held at STEP 2002, revealed a number of issues that received either a scant or a scattered treatment in either or both documents. These issues include: software architecture, software measurement, and software quality. In addition, topics of debate were whether or not user interface design should be considered part of software design, or rather deserves its own, separate treatment; and whether maintenance/evolution merits a separate discussion, or should rather be seen as the default mode of operation in software development. This paper elaborates the discussions of this workshop.
{"title":"Thoughts on software engineering knowledge, and how to organize it","authors":"D.J. Bagert, M. Barbacci, D. Budgen, T. Lethbridge, W. Suryn, H. van Vliet","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267596","url":null,"abstract":"SWEBOK describes what knowledge a software engineer who has a Bachelor's degree and four years of experience should have. SEEK describes the knowledge to be taught in an undergraduate program in software engineering. Although different in scope and purpose, there are many similarities between the two, and after all, even experienced developers need an education, don't they? A full-day workshop on the alignment between SWEBOK and SEEK, held at STEP 2002, revealed a number of issues that received either a scant or a scattered treatment in either or both documents. These issues include: software architecture, software measurement, and software quality. In addition, topics of debate were whether or not user interface design should be considered part of software design, or rather deserves its own, separate treatment; and whether maintenance/evolution merits a separate discussion, or should rather be seen as the default mode of operation in software development. This paper elaborates the discussions of this workshop.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122473124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267628
P. Brereton, S. Linkman, Nigel Thomas, J. Bøegh, S. D. Panfilis
Component based software engineering, the building of software systems from reusable parts, offers the potential to radically improve the way in which software is developed. It promises increased reuse leading to higher quality and reduced time to market. In addition, if component parts are available 'off the shelf' then we can expect to see the emergence of a thriving market in new ever-better components. This should enable those who integrate components into whole systems to adapt and improve such systems rapidly and predictably by replacing old components with new and better ones. This paper reports on work undertaken within CLARiFi, a European-funded project, which aimed to provide a supportive infrastructure to enable such a component marketplace. The infrastructure is manifested through the design, development and evaluation of a series of pre-industrial component broker prototypes. The underlying research areas include the component classification scheme, ranking and selection of components, component certification and visualization in the ranking and selection process. The paper concludes with a discussion of the lessons learned from the prototyping and evaluation activities carried out throughout the project.
{"title":"Software components - enabling a mass market","authors":"P. Brereton, S. Linkman, Nigel Thomas, J. Bøegh, S. D. Panfilis","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267628","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267628","url":null,"abstract":"Component based software engineering, the building of software systems from reusable parts, offers the potential to radically improve the way in which software is developed. It promises increased reuse leading to higher quality and reduced time to market. In addition, if component parts are available 'off the shelf' then we can expect to see the emergence of a thriving market in new ever-better components. This should enable those who integrate components into whole systems to adapt and improve such systems rapidly and predictably by replacing old components with new and better ones. This paper reports on work undertaken within CLARiFi, a European-funded project, which aimed to provide a supportive infrastructure to enable such a component marketplace. The infrastructure is manifested through the design, development and evaluation of a series of pre-industrial component broker prototypes. The underlying research areas include the component classification scheme, ranking and selection of components, component certification and visualization in the ranking and selection process. The paper concludes with a discussion of the lessons learned from the prototyping and evaluation activities carried out throughout the project.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122200581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267599
N. Mehandjiev, P. Layzell, P. Brereton, G. Lewis, M. Mannion, François Coallier
This paper summarizes the findings of the STEP2002 workshop on Interdisciplinary Software Engineering, which took place on the 6th and 7th of October 2002 in Montreal, Canada. The workshop considered the future of software engineering as an interdisciplinary activity by identifying ideas, models and techniques which are already used in cognate disciplines, and are deemed applicable to software engineering, with the aim of breaking down rigid barriers between disciplines, representations and processes.
{"title":"Thirteen Knights and the Seven-headed Dragon: an interdisciplinary software engineering framework","authors":"N. Mehandjiev, P. Layzell, P. Brereton, G. Lewis, M. Mannion, François Coallier","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267599","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267599","url":null,"abstract":"This paper summarizes the findings of the STEP2002 workshop on Interdisciplinary Software Engineering, which took place on the 6th and 7th of October 2002 in Montreal, Canada. The workshop considered the future of software engineering as an interdisciplinary activity by identifying ideas, models and techniques which are already used in cognate disciplines, and are deemed applicable to software engineering, with the aim of breaking down rigid barriers between disciplines, representations and processes.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114528413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267626
R. Seacord, G. Lewis, R. Bunting
1 BACKGROUND Enterprise systems, as well as other types of software systems, are increasingly being developed largely from COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) components. While a COTS-based systems approach is often considered essential to building highly functional, competitive systems this approach also poses many challenges. Foremost among these is the identification of compatible components that meet the functional requirements of the system under development. Compatibility in this sense is a measure of how easily various components can be integrated. A COBOL module running on a Unisys platform would not be considered highly compatible with a VisualBasic application, for example.
{"title":"COTS integration and evaluation: introduction","authors":"R. Seacord, G. Lewis, R. Bunting","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267626","url":null,"abstract":"1 BACKGROUND Enterprise systems, as well as other types of software systems, are increasingly being developed largely from COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) components. While a COTS-based systems approach is often considered essential to building highly functional, competitive systems this approach also poses many challenges. Foremost among these is the identification of compatible components that meet the functional requirements of the system under development. Compatibility in this sense is a measure of how easily various components can be integrated. A COBOL module running on a Unisys platform would not be considered highly compatible with a VisualBasic application, for example.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122259723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267610
S. Tilley, H. Muller, L. O'Brien, K. Wong
As part of Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP) 2002 conference, the 2nd International Workshop on Adoption-Centric Software Engineering (ACSE 2002) was held in Montreal, Canada on Oct. 6-7, 2002. This report summarizes the ACSE 2002 workshop and provides a tentative roadmap towards addressing some of the challenges related to technology transition. In particular, the paper highlights the workshop's focus on adoption issues in the context of moving software reverse engineering tools from research prototypes to widely used products.
{"title":"Report from the Second International Workshop on Adoption-Centric Software Engineering (ACSE 2002)","authors":"S. Tilley, H. Muller, L. O'Brien, K. Wong","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267610","url":null,"abstract":"As part of Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP) 2002 conference, the 2nd International Workshop on Adoption-Centric Software Engineering (ACSE 2002) was held in Montreal, Canada on Oct. 6-7, 2002. This report summarizes the ACSE 2002 workshop and provides a tentative roadmap towards addressing some of the challenges related to technology transition. In particular, the paper highlights the workshop's focus on adoption issues in the context of moving software reverse engineering tools from research prototypes to widely used products.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127519486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267632
W. Suryn, F. Robert, A. Abran, P. Bourque, R. Champagne
In May 2001, trial version of the guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) was released in a Web format and, in December 2001, in book format with the intent to collect comments and possible improvements. Up to now, feedback received confirmed the usefulness of the guide for all documented knowledge areas, with the exception of the software construction knowledge area, for which the content does not map easily to industry practices or to actual academic curricula. We conducted a review of the chapter to identify the level of experimental support for each topic mentioned in this chapter. In order to classify the level of support, the classification in twelve experimental methods for validating technology by Zelkowitz and Wallace is used. It permits the identification of some of its weaknesses and provides further guidance on content improvements of the chapter.
{"title":"Experimental support analysis of the software construction knowledge area in the SWEBOK guide","authors":"W. Suryn, F. Robert, A. Abran, P. Bourque, R. Champagne","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267632","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267632","url":null,"abstract":"In May 2001, trial version of the guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) was released in a Web format and, in December 2001, in book format with the intent to collect comments and possible improvements. Up to now, feedback received confirmed the usefulness of the guide for all documented knowledge areas, with the exception of the software construction knowledge area, for which the content does not map easily to industry practices or to actual academic curricula. We conducted a review of the chapter to identify the level of experimental support for each topic mentioned in this chapter. In order to classify the level of support, the classification in twelve experimental methods for validating technology by Zelkowitz and Wallace is used. It permits the identification of some of its weaknesses and provides further guidance on content improvements of the chapter.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116348968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-10-06DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2002.1267621
J. Jacobs, J. Trienekens
Software development evolved in barely half a century from an exotic and rather esoteric pioneering endeavor into a cornerstone of modern society. Unprecedented methodological advances have been made over a such a short period of time that it doesn't come as a surprise that one talks about the "software revolution". In fact, the "software revolution" is a "software evolution" that took place in such a short period of time that it is perceived as a revolution. third evolution stage, mastering of software-intensive product complexity. A dramatic growth of size and technical complexity of software and associated managerial complexity caused desperate attempts for improvements of the software development process to get projects and product quality under control, often guided by improvement models like SEI's Capability Maturity Model CMM (Paulk et al., 1993). Many companies are still struggling with this stage, while the next evolutionary stage is emerging, right now: the stage of complex product development. Products become so complex, that the product development is distributed over multiple departments, or even over several companies, involving many specialisms. Of the many problems associated with complex product development, the verification and validation process is one of the toughest.
软件开发在仅仅半个世纪的时间里就从一个异域的、相当深奥的先驱努力演变成了现代社会的基石。在如此短的时间内取得了前所未有的方法论进步，因此人们谈论“软件革命”并不奇怪。事实上，“软件革命”是在很短的时间内发生的“软件进化”，它被认为是一场革命。第三个进化阶段，掌握软件密集型产品的复杂性。软件规模和技术复杂性的急剧增长以及相关的管理复杂性导致了对软件开发过程的改进的绝望尝试，以使项目和产品质量处于控制之下，通常由改进模型如SEI的能力成熟度模型CMM (Paulk et al.， 1993)所指导。许多公司仍在这一阶段苦苦挣扎，而下一个进化阶段正在出现:复杂产品开发阶段。产品变得如此复杂，以至于产品开发分散到多个部门，甚至几个公司，涉及许多专业。在与复杂产品开发相关的许多问题中，验证和确认过程是最棘手的问题之一。
{"title":"Improving verification and validation in hardware/software environments. Introduction to the workshop","authors":"J. Jacobs, J. Trienekens","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2002.1267621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2002.1267621","url":null,"abstract":"Software development evolved in barely half a century from an exotic and rather esoteric pioneering endeavor into a cornerstone of modern society. Unprecedented methodological advances have been made over a such a short period of time that it doesn't come as a surprise that one talks about the \"software revolution\". In fact, the \"software revolution\" is a \"software evolution\" that took place in such a short period of time that it is perceived as a revolution. third evolution stage, mastering of software-intensive product complexity. A dramatic growth of size and technical complexity of software and associated managerial complexity caused desperate attempts for improvements of the software development process to get projects and product quality under control, often guided by improvement models like SEI's Capability Maturity Model CMM (Paulk et al., 1993). Many companies are still struggling with this stage, while the next evolutionary stage is emerging, right now: the stage of complex product development. Products become so complex, that the product development is distributed over multiple departments, or even over several companies, involving many specialisms. Of the many problems associated with complex product development, the verification and validation process is one of the toughest.","PeriodicalId":271935,"journal":{"name":"10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128174786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：