If you  have any questions about your project scores, please talk to 
Venkat in person. Email questions regarding grades (individual or
project) will be politely deleted.

		UseCase		Dev.	Demo FinalReport 	Total
Data Mining	46              45      48    7                 28
UConnect 	30              20      40    7                 21
Cougar Travels  47              34      37    5                 23
Enterprise... 	30              20      36    5                 18
Banking System  30              45      41    4                 22
Winning Vent... 34              45      45    7                 26

Final Report 7 points

Enterprise ... 5
Not sure who factory method is being used. It is not clear from reading
what you have said. Use of singleton when not really needed. Not clear
what role your proxy really played. It appears more like an entity class
to me than a proxy. Only a graph of D' with no reasoning or analysis
is presented. 

DataMining 7
I'm not really sure about some the performance advantages stated (like
casting related). Nice to see unit test coverage information. Good discussions
on strengths and weaknesses, and also on principles and patterns.

UConnect 7
Enough details about principles and usage though could be improved.
Your design metric is not strong, however, I appreciate your courage
to still post those number of old and new design metric(this gave you some
points you lost otherwise in the report). 
I like the "what if we were do do this again?" section.

Cougar Travel 5
You report svn gave a lot of trouble, yet did not seek help from the instructor.
Could have easily provided a stable, working tool and helped with the problem.
There is also one contradiction. You did not start coding until end, yet
you had too much trouble with source control system? Makes me wonder.
You have identified (and acknowledged) some of the risks in your project.

Banking Application 4
Too many pages spent educating me on Mock objects. 
Using singleton for connection is not smart. You are holding connection 
even when you don't have to. Totally irrelevant comment about singleton 
and copy constructor problem in C++. What does that have to do with 
your project? Then you go on to talk about patterns you did not use.
No mention of any metrics? Page filled with really not much stuff related 
to your project. Poor report.

Winning Ventures 7
Good report. Nice coverage of reasoning, principles, patterns, and their usage.
Nice to see the metrics and details of unit tests as well.

If your controller does not have any state or property, why not make it a 
static class instead of a singleton?
It really is not easier to test things manually, you just choose to do it 
that way.
Your mean-sequence diagram shows only one package? The value of D' in your 
manual calculation is pretty high as well. Yet, there was no change to design.
Not much on patterns and principles - pretty weak.

Demo
10 points each in Presentation, Issues and handling, Layering, 
	Patters and Practices, Q & A

Enterprise (36)
Good layering. Not strong in concepts - were throwing patterns at the
dart board. Had little understanding of concurrency issues and file
location. Not any mention of other qualities like source control,
unit testing, etc.
Presentation 8
Issues and handling 7
Layering 9
Patters and Practices 5
Q & A 7

Data Mining (48)
Very good use of tools, relevant patterns, and metrics. Some concern
over too much complexity at some parts - has scope for simplification. 
Presentation 9
Issues and handling 10
Layering 10
Patters and Practices 10
Q & A 9

UConnect (40)
Reall good job on GUI. Some unit testing, but where's the source control?
Very poor layering and separation of concern.
Presentation 10
Issues and handling 9
Layering 6
Patters and Practices 6
Q & A 9

Cougar Travels (37)
No unit testing, source control. Not very stable, not fully integrated.
Presentation 6
Issues and handling 8
Layering 9
Patters and Practices 5
Q & A 9

Banking System (41)
Not enough separation of concerns. 
Source control sadly missing. Unit testing?
Presentation 9
Issues and handling 10
Layering 8
Patters and Practices 5
Q & A 9

WinningVentures (45)
Presentation 10
Issues and handling 10
Layering 9
Patters and Practices 7
Some Unit testing, but surprised to see no source control usage!
Q & A 9

Dev Report
10 points each for items I, II, III, IV and V. Total out of 50 points.
I. Architecture description
II. Design details.
III. Development Activity
IV. Problems faced and solved
V. Tools and effectiveness

Enterprise... (40 => 20 after penelty)
On page 4 it appears like you have lifted figure from somewhere, but have 
not given reference. This would be  considered plagurism. Anytime you use 
someone else's work, reference it.

As I read further, this is getting ridiculous. You have lifted the sentence:
"The Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern separates the modeling of the domain,
the presentation, and the actions based on user input into three separate 
classes [Burbeck92]" from some web site (possibly http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnpatterns/html/DesMVC.asp).

Your report does not have reference to what Burbeck92 is.

The entire page (page 11 in your report) is a copy from the web.

I don't need you to copy and past a web site as your report.
I have no idea now how much of this report is yours and how much you 
copied. I will access 50% penelty for the above copy.

I. Architecture description 8
Some what sketch.

II. Design details. 8
Enough details, but too much database centric and also indicates
extensive up-front design.

III. Development Activity 10
OK

IV. Problems faced and solved 8
Not enough details though some information presented here and there.

V. Tools and effectiveness 6
Not enough details about effectiveness.

Data Mining 45
I like the honest assessment of progress on page 1.
The architecture presented is a bit low level detail than it should be.
Good work in reporting D' value. Would have been nice to see a
paragraph analyzing that information and details on what needs to
be redesigned.

I. Architecture description 9
ok
II. Design details 9
Adequate details.
III. Development Activity 9
IV. Problems faced and solved 9
V. Tools and effectiveness 9
Would have liked to see some mention about coverage results you got 
from Cobertura (though I am glad to see you're using it!)

UConnect (37 => 19)

Sections of your document were lifted from the web without putting them
in quote and giving reference. 
"Enter NHibernate: an open-source, object-relational persistence framework that uses XML to map classes and properties (in your program) to tables and columns (in your database). Once you write the mappings, NHibernate manages the database code and SQL necessary to save and retrieve your objects, saving significant development time and effort." [http://www.capecoddotnet.org]
Sections also lifted from http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/29685.
This is considered plagurism. I post a 50% penalty for that.

I. Architecture description 9
ok
II. Design details. 8
I wonder if you need these different profile classes or you could 
use some what a more general profile with a "Collection of data."
The design looks a bit heavy.
III. Development Activity 8
ok.
IV. Problems faced and solved 6
Not much.
V. Tools and effectiveness 6
Not much.

Cougar Travels (34)

I. Architecture description 7
Not much of architecture presented. Diagram is not quite architectural
II. Design details. 7
Not much of whys given.
III. Development Activity 8
High risk as only design completed. Not prudent.
IV. Problems faced and solved 6
Not much.
V. Tools and effectiveness 6
Not much.

Banking System (45)
In the first four pages there is too much information that is not specific
to your project.
Good details on design given
Not clear about Business layer - it has mixture of entity mostly
Good report overall

I. Architecture description 8
ok
II. Design details. 9
See comments above.
III. Development Activity 8
Some what sketchy.
IV. Problems faced and solved 10
V. Tools and effectiveness 10

Winning Vent... (45)

I. Architecture description (9)
Fairly well written.
II. Design details (8).
Design and details a tad too detailed - I see your comments on
refactoring efforts.
III. Development Activity (9)
IV. Problems faced and solved (10)
V. Tools and effectiveness (9)
You've mentioned JDepend, but not much details - (OK, I see intended!)

Use case Report
10 points each for items I, II, III, IV and V. Total out of 50 points.
I. Use case Diagram
II. Flow of Events
III. Description of functionality
IV. Discussions/presentation of interfaces
V. Report overall

Data Mining (46)
I. (8)
As I am reading I am suspecious of Matlab and Cluster of Compupters 
	being Actors. I will read on to see if this makes sense.
	It sounds like Application Developer is really not an actor to
	your working system. I am not convinced at the end of page 2 that
	any of the secondary actors are really valid.
	You have said Researcher is an important actor, but this actor
	does the least for some reason!
II. (10)
Enough details presented.
III. (10)
Adequate, though it would have been nice to explain a few terms like
	DataSet.
IV. (8)
I see mentioned of visualization and Matlab. Not much else regarding what
to expect.
V. (10)
Report well written. Nice description of various details.
Please remember to include names of each active (still registered) 
group member in each report. 

UConnect (30)
I. (10)
It is better to give a verb phrase for a use case name. "Register" instead
of "Registration."
II. (8)
Some of the steps are too broad or contain too many actions.
III. (2) 
Lacking on this item.
IV. (2)
Hardly any details regarding this.
V. (8)
Abrupt start of report with use case information. I have no idea
what this project is about without running for the proposal. One or
two paragraphs explaning what this is all about is necessary.
Please remember to include names of each active (still registered) 
group member in each report. 

Cougar Travels (47)
I. (8) 
Too many premature optimization in use case diagram. I am not sure why
travel agent can't, for instance, search for hotels independent of searching
for flights?
II. (10)
Some of the steps are a bit too broad or specify too much.
III. (10)
Fairly clear from the informatin presented.
IV. (10)
Very good description and adequate details.
V. (9)
Pretty good. Could have used a paragraph or two in the beginning
flowing nicely into use cases.

Enterprise Commerce Manager (30)
I. (9)
Create Roles use case seems pretty odd in your system. I have no
clue what that is for.
II. (10)
Fairly adquate details
III. (2)
Hardly any details.
IV. (2)
Hardly any details.
V. (7)
Report starts abruptly without much introduction to what this is about.
Has nothing more than flow of events for most part.

Banking System (30)
I. (10)
Is ATM part of your system or does it access your system?
Are you developing software for Bank or for ATM or both? Which one
is the current project or are they one and the same.
How is staff different from Teller, and why?
II. (10)
Fairly enough details.
III. (2)
Hardly any details.
IV. (2)
Hardly any details.
V. (6)
Report starts abruptly without much introduction to what this is about.
Would be nice to say what the actors are and indicate that you are presenting
only use cases for one actor at a time, etc.. Details related to questions
I've raised in item I above would have been useful.

Winning Ventures (34)
I. (9)
Page 15, the use case diagram is a diaster. It fails one of the key
principles - understandability.
II. (10)
Some of the major activities expected in the flow appear in post condition.
For example, when organizer requests to add event, request is sent to
administrator. That may have to be clarified more in the event flow.
III. (3)
Some information provided, but not adequate.
IV. (2)
Hardy any details on this.
V. (10)
Report starts with some details before jumping into use cases.
Nice description of what each actor is.