### Table 4.1 Differences between modular and generative design. Attribute Modular Design Generative Design

### Table 28 Design dimensions for the Modular Event System Modular Event System

2005

"... In PAGE 6: ...able 27 Design dimensions for TSpaces .................................................................................................... 59 Table28 Design dimensions for the Modular Event System .... ..."

### Table 6.5: Comparison with modular exponentiation design of Blum and Paar. Radix-2 design Blum Radix-2 [4] Blum Radix-16 [4]

### Table Checking Tool is decomposed into a set of modules, each of which encapsu- lates design decisions that are likely to be changed. This modular structure of TCkT makes it easier to understand and modify because of the separation of design concerns.

### Table 1 Modular Properties

"... In PAGE 3: ... So, the final list of quality parameters for CM tool architectural design comparison is: Flexibility, testability, portability, availability, simplicity, traceability for correctness and communication, and interoperability 10. Based on Table1 , entries for every architecture, for each of their components, an assessment of the five parameters degree of cohesion, coupling, fan-out, complexity and module size is done, and corresponding ratings, like, M1, M2, M3, MF1 and MF2 are determined with the help of Table 1. Number of components = n; For each component compute following: CMPX_n = MF1*MF2 ; SMP_n =1-CMPX_n; MOD_n = M1*M2*M3 ; COM_n = Sqrt(MOD_n*(10-CMPX_n) ; Here, M1,M2,M3, MF1 and MF2 referrers to a particular component.... In PAGE 3: ... So, the final list of quality parameters for CM tool architectural design comparison is: Flexibility, testability, portability, availability, simplicity, traceability for correctness and communication, and interoperability 10. Based on Table 1, entries for every architecture, for each of their components, an assessment of the five parameters degree of cohesion, coupling, fan-out, complexity and module size is done, and corresponding ratings, like, M1, M2, M3, MF1 and MF2 are determined with the help of Table1 . Number of components = n; For each component compute following: CMPX_n = MF1*MF2 ; SMP_n =1-CMPX_n; MOD_n = M1*M2*M3 ; COM_n = Sqrt(MOD_n*(10-CMPX_n) ; Here, M1,M2,M3, MF1 and MF2 referrers to a particular component.... ..."

### Table 6. 2. Correlation coefficients between forecasted network load distributions and envelope working capacity distributions (i.e., the shapes of PWCEs) of conventional design with modularity, model B volume maximization designs with model D and C re-splitting (Conv: conventional; mod: modularization) Network Conv-mod-D B-mod-D B-mod-C

2004

### Table 9.2: Design 1: CLB usage and execution time for a full modular exponentiation 512 bit 768 bit 1024 bit

1999

Cited by 26

### Table 9.4: Design2: CLB usage and execution time for a full modular exponentiation 512 bit 768 bit 1024 bit

1999

Cited by 26

### Table 2 The repeatability of modularity methods.

"... In PAGE 11: ... LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Comparison of architectural representation methods. Table2 The repeatability of modularity methods. Table 3 Interface complexity values (per 1% change in the original flow value) for different flow types at two different companies.... In PAGE 42: ...amily. DSM does not have a step for this at all. MFD has one driver out of many to identify common units across products, but this driver presumes that the commonality is predetermined. The function structure heuristics include three heuristics designed specifically for product family design, but as shown in Table2 , the repeatability is the poorest when trying to identify the commonalities across products. Thevenot and Simpson [ 115] also call for more specific definitions of commonality in their analysis of commonality metrics for platform design.... ..."

### Table 6: Calibrate Map Scenario 3.3.3 Locus Subsystems and Components Two of our design goals were modularity and flexibility. By designing Locus as different components or subsystems that interact with each other, the subsystems can be implemented, tested, and changed independently of each other. The internals of a component can be completely changed with no impact on the rest of the system as long as the subsystem interfaces do not change. Four platform independent and one platform dependent subsystem will make up the Locus software. Figure 8 shows these subsystems. A functional description of each subsystem is provided in Table 7.

2004

"... In PAGE 7: ...able 5: Prepare Map Scenario ......................................................................................... 44 Table6 : Calibrate Map Scenario .... ..."