This is an electronic reprint of the original article.

This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

Author(s): Laine, M., Shestakov, D., Litvinova, E., and Vuorimaa, P.

Title: Toward Unified Web Application Development
Year: 2011
Version: Final published version
Please cite the original version:
Laine, M., Shestakov, D., Litvinova, E., and Vuorimaa, P. (2011). Toward Unified Web
Application Development. IT Professional, 13(5), 30-36. DOI: 10.1109/MITP.2011.55
Rights: © 2011 IEEE. Reprited, with permission, from Laine, M., Shestakov, D., Litvinova, E., and Vuorimaa, P.
(2011). Toward Unified Web Application Development. IT Professional, 13(5), 30-36. DOI:
10.1109/MITP.2011.55

In reference to IEEE copyrighted material which is used with permission in this dissertation, the IEEE does
not endorse any of [university/educational entity's name goes here]'s products or services. Internal or
personal use of this material is permitted. If interested in reprinting/republishing IEEE copyrighted material for
advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution, please
go to http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/rights_link.html to learn how to obtain a
License from RightsLink.

This publication is included in the electronic version of the article dissertation:

Laine, Markku. Unified Web Application Development - A Declarative Approach to Empower End-User
Developers. Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS, 6/2018.

All material supplied via Aaltodoc is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and
duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may
be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must
obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or
otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 THE FUTURE OF WEB APPS

Toward Unified
Web Application
Development
Markku Laine, Denis Shestakov, Evgenia Litvinova, and Petri Vuorimaa,
Aalto University School of Science

Web application development in the context of the conventional

three-tier architecture is complex, typically requiring a team of experts.
Recent Web application architectures and frameworks simplify the
development process, potentially turning tier-specific experts into
one-person developer teams.

T
raditional Web application develop-
ment requires a good understanding
of heterogeneous systems, program-
ming languages, concepts, and frame-
works. For example, in a Web application based
on the conventional three-tier architecture,1 the
presentation (user interface), logic (server), and
data (data management) tiers are all authored
using conceptually different programming
languages.2
Novel Web application architectures have
emerged that aim to reduce this complexity
by expanding the concepts used on a single
tier to cover all three tiers. In addition to re-
ducing the amount of required knowledge and
simplifying the development process, these ar-
chitectural approaches also allow tier-specific
experts to author an entire Web application on
their own.
Classification of Programming
Languages
Numerous programming languages have been
developed over the years. One way of better un-
derstanding their similarities and differences is
to classify them into a hierarchy of paradigms
based on their computation model. Typically,
top-level classification comprises two paradigms—
imperative (such as C, Java, and JavaScript) and
declarative (such as CSS, HTML, and SQL)—
which we can further divide into subparadigms,
as shown in Figure 1.3
The main difference between the two top-level
paradigms is that declarative languages specify
what a program should do (the desired results),
rather than how to do it (the algorithms needed
to achieve the results). This higher abstrac-
tion level makes declarative languages easier
to reason about and raises their semantic level.

30 IT Pro September/October 2011 Published by the IEEE Computer Society 1520-9202/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE

Imperative languages, on the other
hand, have more expressive power
but are generally harder to use and
4
understand. This classification of
top-level paradigms isn’t absolute Procedural
though—some programming lan-
guages are more declarative than • C
others, and some even support multi-
ple paradigms. Figure 1. A hierarchy of programming language paradigms (based
Another notable difference be- on Doris Appleby and Julius VandeKopple’s work ). The top-level
tween imperative and declarative lan- classification comprises
guages is their scope of use. Typically,
imperative languages (such as C and
Java) are more general-purpose and applicable for
solving a variety of problems, whereas declara-
tive languages are more applicable for solving
domain-specific problems, such as defining the
structure (HTML) or styling (CSS) of a webpage,
or managing data (SQL) stored in a relational
database. This, of course, makes a certain de-
clarative language a good fit for solving the prob-
lems for which it was specifically designed and a
poor fit for others because it lacks expressiveness
in that domain.
The Evolution of Web
Application Architectures
As Figure 2a shows, authors (that is, Web de-
signers, Web developers, and database experts)
implement a typical Web application’s presenta-
tion tier using declarative XHTML, combined
with imperative JavaScript to provide additional
interactivity. They implement the application
logic residing on the server side using an object-
oriented imperative language, such as Java, Ruby,
or PHP. They carry out communication between
these two tiers using declarative formats (for ex-
ample, XML or JSON—JavaScript Object No-
tation) and the Ajax technique. Finally, on the
undermost tier of the application—that is, the
data tier—they use either an object-relational
mapping (ORM) library or declarative SQL
statements to manage data stored in a relational
database.
The problem with this conventional archi-
tecture is that it requires different tier-specific
experts because of the various programming
languages, programming paradigms, and data
models on each tier. In addition, the partition-
ing of a Web application between the client
(presentation tier) and the server (logic and
Programming language
paradigms
Imperative Declarative
Object- Parallel
Logic Functional Database
based processing
• Java • Java • Prolog • Lisp • SQL
3
two paradigms—imperative and declarative.
data tiers) makes the development process more
complex. 5
One way of simplifying the development
process is to expand what is normally used on
a single tier to cover all three tiers. An author
could also select a single programming language
and paradigm (imperative or declarative) from a
specific tier to use throughout the entire Web
application.
Expanding the Presentation Tier:
XFormsDB
A Web designer working on the presentation tier
is, as a rule, familiar with declarative XHTML
and CSS but not skillful in the server-side aspects
of a Web application. Such an expert can ben-
efit from an architectural approach expanding
a presentation-centric language with common
server-side and database-related functionality.
XFormsDB (developed by Markku Laine, http://
code.google.com/p/xformsdb) is an example of
presentation-centric architectural expansion.6
The idea behind the declarative XFormsDB
markup language7 is to naturally extend XForms
(see the sidebar) with the most common server-
side and database-related functionality (see
Figure 2b) so authors no longer have to resort
to imperative client-side scripting or server-side
programming languages. To manage the data
stored in data sources, XFormsDB uses de-
clarative XPath, but it also lets authors use the
declarative XQuery to execute more complex que-
ries (see the sidebar). The XFormsDB framework
is bundled with the Apache Tomcat Web server,
the eXist-db native XML database, 8 and the
Orbeon Forms Ajax-based server-side XForms pro-
cessor, which can transform requested webpages
into cross-browser JavaScript and HTML files.
computer.org/ITPro 31
 THE FUTURE OF WEB APPS

XHTML+
Presentation XML
XForms

XForms Logic XML

XForms
Presentation Data XML
(XPath)

(b)
XHTML+ XML+
Presentation
JavaScript JSON
XHTML+ Presentation Object-
Java oriented

Object- Logic Java Logic Object-

Java/Ruby/PHP Logic
oriented oriented

Java Object-
Data
(ORM) oriented
SQL/ORM Data Relational
(c)

(a)
Data
XHTML+ Presentation XML
XQuery

XQuery Logic XML

XQuery Data XML

(d)

Figure 2. Presentation, logic, and data-centric approaches for expanding (a) the conventional three-tier Web
application architecture. Different Web application frameworks exist for each tier: (b) XFormsDB expands the
presentation tier, (c) the Google Web Toolkit is for the logic tier, and (d) Sausalito expands the data tier. For
each architecture, technologies appear on the left and data models are on the right.

Expanding the Logic Tier: imperative Java—beyond its intended scope so

The Google Web Toolkit
A Web developer working on the logic tier pos-
sesses excellent technical knowledge but doesn’t
necessarily have the need or motivation to imple-
ment a fancy user interface for a Web application.
A logic-centric approach based on an impera-
tive, general-purpose programming language
is the most attractive option in this case. In
2006, Google introduced its Google Web Tool-
kit (GWT, http://code.google.com/webtoolkit),
which became one of the first modern frame-
works for this approach.
GWT aims to expand a general-purpose pro-
gramming language—namely, object-oriented
that it can be used not only to author the server-
side application logic but also a Web application
user interface (see Figure 2c). (Authors could
also use XHTML to create the user interface).
When a GWT-based Web application is deployed,
the GWT Java-to-JavaScript compiler translates
the user interface code written in Java into cross-
browser JavaScript and HTML files, thus mak-
ing it possible to create complex Ajax-style Web
applications in Java.
This approach also supports the execution
of the same application code on both the client
and server side, increasing the code’s reusabi-
lity.5 Furthermore, using GWT with an ORM

32 IT Pro September/October 2011

 XForms and XQuery
H ere we introduce two W3C recommendations
for declarative Web application development.
XForms: An XML Form Language
XForms, a W3C recommendation since October 2003,
is an XML-based Web forms technology and the suc-
cessor to HTML forms.1 It was designed to tackle the
most common problems found in HTML forms (for
example, dependency on imperative scripting lang-
uages, such as JavaScript) and to ease the authoring
of dynamic Web forms.
XQuery: An XML Query Language
XQuery is a powerful query language designed by
W3C for extracting and manipulating data from XML
library, such as Hibernate, to manage data lets an
author implement an entire Web application using
only Java.
Expanding the Data Tier: Sausalito
Database experts have special needs for design-
ing and developing Web applications. For exam-
ple, they might need to implement a simple user
interface to handle and analyze available data. To
use their existing knowledge, they need a devel-
opment approach based on concepts commonly
used on the data tier. The Sausalito XQuery appli-
cation server (www.28msec.com) provides such
a data-centric approach by extending a query
language’s capabilities to cover the most com-
mon client-side and server-side functionality (see
Figure 2d).
Sausalito uses declarative XQuery as the base
language for developing full-fledged Web appli-
cations. In Sausalito, a database expert can au-
thor a Web application’s presentation tier using
declarative XHTML combined with declara-
tive XQuery, instead of having to resort to im-
perative JavaScript. Sausalito uses XQuery on all
three tiers, so the database expert can use the
same XQuery code on the server side as well.
When a webpage is requested, the Zorba
XQuery processor executes the XQuery server-
side code before sending the webpage to the cli-
ent. On the client side, XQuery in the Browser
(XQiB)—which provides browser-related XQuery
extensions and includes a JavaScript-based
MXQuery XQuery processor—interprets and
executes the remaining XQuery code. Sausalito
comes bundled with an integrated Web, appli-
cation, and database server.
documents or any data source that can be viewed as
XML, such as relational databases.2 XQuery extends
XPath, another W3C recommended query language,
by introducing additional functionality, such as data
grouping and sorting as well as cross-document
joins.
References
1. J.M. Boyer, XForms 1.1, World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) recommendation, Oct. 2009; www.w3.org/TR/
xforms.
2. S. Boag et al., XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language
(2nd ed.), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
recommendation, Dec. 2010; www.w3.org/TR/xquery.
From Theory to Practice
We evaluated these three Web application frame-
works to obtain a high-level overview and consi-
der their advantages and drawbacks. We focused
on eight software product quality characteristics
that are part of the ISO/IEC 25010:2011 stan-
dard.9 However, because the standard isn’t spe-
cifically designed to evaluate Web application
frameworks, we included two additional charac-
teristics: time-to-market10 and support (that is,
documentation quality, development community
activity, and development tool availability).
Functional Suitability
Sausalito and especially GWT provide rich func-
tionality for developing enterprise-level Web appli-
cations with complex business logic. XFormsDB’s
functionality covers only the most common
server-side and database-related tasks, because
the framework targets Web designers whose main
focus isn’t on the application’s business logic.
Reliability
GWT, the oldest and most mature of the three
frameworks, has been widely adopted around the
world, and many public Google products, such as
Google AdWords, use it. On the contrary, both
XFormsDB and Sausalito were developed as aca-
demic projects, though a start-up company was
recently established to commercialize Sausalito.
The reliability of both frameworks has been tested
on numerous Web applications.
Security
XFormsDB provides built-in and easy-to-
use security capabilities for authentication and
computer.org/ITPro 33
 THE FUTURE OF WEB APPS
access control. Neither GWT nor Sausalito have
such support.
Compatibility
All three frameworks can consume data from
third-party systems, such as through Represen-
tational State Transfer (REST) APIs. In addi-
tion, Sausalito has a built-in solution for building
RESTful services, whereas XFormsDB can
expose its application data through eXist-db’s
RESTful API. With GWT, support for RESTful
services must be implemented manually with
the help of external libraries.
Operability
For an author with little technical knowledge,
Sausalito and especially XFormsDB are easy to
learn,11 because they’re both based on declara-
tive languages with limited functionality. The
adoption rate of both XForms and XQuery,
however, is still quite low, despite their being
W3C recommendations. In contrast, an author
with excellent technical knowledge, especially
in Java, might find GWT’s learning curve very
gentle.
Performance efficiency
Of the three frameworks, Sausalito is the only
one designed with scalability in mind; it provides
a built-in solution for deploying Web applica-
tions to a cloud infrastructure. With GWT, per-
formance isn’t an issue, whereas response times
in XFormsDB are reasonable but not highly
optimized.
Maintainability
Both XFormsDB and Sausalito rely heavily on
W3C standards, which increase code modula-
rity and reusability. GWT, alternatively, provides
an extensive component library. In addition,
both XFormsDB and GWT are open-source
projects, so they can be easily modified and
extended.
Portability
Development environments for XFormsDB,
GWT, and Sausalito all come with executable
scripts and a bundled Web server, so they’re easy
to install and uninstall. Sausalito also provides a
built-in solution for deploying production-ready
Web applications to a cloud infrastructure.
34 IT Pro September/October 2011
Time-to-Market
GWT’s easier learning curve facilitates the rapid
prototyping and development of Web applica-
tions. XFormsDB and Sausalito allow rapid pro-
totyping but require additional learning up front.
Support
Both XFormsDB and GWT provide visual de-
velopment tools, whereas Sausalito provides only
development tools for Eclipse. The development
community around GWT is very active and its
documentation is extensive, whereas the docu-
mentation for XFormsDB and Sausalito is less
advanced.
Framework Comparisons
According to our evaluation, logic-centric im-
perative GWT is the most mature and powerful
of the three frameworks. It also provides the best
support in terms of documentation, activity, and
tools. Data-centric declarative Sausalito deli-
vers the most scalable solution with good built-
in machine-to-machine communication support.
Presentation-centric declarative XFormsDB of-
fers the most attractive solution for authors with
little technical knowledge.
However, there are other Web application
frameworks representing a tier-centric architec-
tural expansion idea:
• XML-based QAFE (www.qafe.com);
• XQuery-based eXist-db;8
• JavaScript-based Helma (www.helma.org); and
• HTML-based Angular.12
Figure 3 compares these frameworks according
to whether they’re imperative or declarative (or
a hybrid of the two) and where they originate in
the three-tier structure. For each framework, we
also indicate the year of origin (the year of its
first release or relevant publication). Note that
the imperative-versus-declarative comparison is
fuzzy—that is, more imperative frameworks ap-
pear on the left, more declarative frameworks
appear on the right, and the hybrid frameworks
are closer to the middle.
We can roughly identify three clusters in
Figure 3. The XML- and XQuery-based frame-
works originating from presentation and data tiers
are typically declarative. In turn, logic-centric
GWT and presentation-centric Helma are imperative.
 Imperative Declarative

Angular, in the inter mediate posi- Helma Angular XFormsDB QAFE

tion, is a hybrid framework. (2005) (2009) (2007) (2008)
Although a proper discussion of
Web application development ap- Presentation
proaches is out of this article’s
scope (a related discussion appe- GWT
ars elsewhere13), we should men- (2006)
tion that model-driven development
approaches also exist, such as Logic
RUX+WebML,14 UWE4JSF,15 and
OOH4RIA.16 In such approaches, the
Sausalito eXist-db
development process involves creat- (2008) (2007)
ing a set of models for an application
and then using a declarative graphi- Data
cal language to transform them into
a code implementation.
Figure 3. A comparison of the frameworks according to where they
verall, GWT seems more appear on an imperative-declarative language scale and where they

O functional and mature and originate in a three-tier application structure. The XML- and XQuery-
provided better support. Yet based frameworks are typically declarative, logic-centric GWT and
declarative XFormsDB and Sausalito presentation-centric Helma are imperative, while Angular is a hybrid
are sufficiently mature to let experts framework.
from a corresponding tier author highly
interactive Web applications. All of the evaluated 6. M. Laine, “XFormsDB—An XForms-Based Frame-
approaches offer compelling alternatives to conven- work for Simplifying Web Application Development,”
tional three-tier Web development. With the ongo- master’s thesis, Dept. Media Technology, Aalto Univ.
ing trend in deploying Web applications on cloud School of Science, 2010.
platforms—where developers have little or no con- 7. M. Honkala, O. Koskimies, and M. Laine, “Con-
trol over the resources the applications are using— necting XForms to Databases,” W3C Workshop on
the declarative style of Web application develop- Declarative Models of Distributed Web Applica-
ment becomes particularly promising. We thus tions, 2007; www.w3.org/2007/02/dmdwa-ws/Papers/
argue that declarative Web application frameworks oskari-koskimies.pdf.
will play much larger role in the coming years. 8. W. Meier, “eXist: An Open Source Native XML
Database,” Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems,
References LNCS 2593, Springer, 2003, pp. 169–183.
1. G. Alonso et al., Web Services: Concepts, Architectures 9. ISO/IEC 25010:2011: Systems and Software Engineering—
and Applications (Data-Centric Systems and Applications), Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evalu-
Springer, 2003. ation (SQuaRE)—System and Software Quality Models,
2. T. Mikkonen and A. Taivalsaari, Web Applications— Int’l Standards Organization/Int’l Electrotechnical
Spaghetti Code for the 21st Century, tech. report TR- Commission, 2011.
2007-166, Sun Microsystems, June 2007. 10. J. Offutt, “Quality Attributes of Web Software Applica-
3. D. Appleby and J. VandeKopple, Programming Lang- tions,” IEEE Software, vol. 19, no. 2, 2002, pp. 25–32.
uages: Paradigm and Practice, Computer Science Series, 11. M. Åkerberg, “Evaluation of XFormsDB-Based Ap-
McGraw-Hill, 1997. plication Development—A Case Study,” master’s
4. M. Honkala, “Web User Interaction—A Declarative thesis, Dept. Media Technology, Aalto Univ. School
Approach Based on XForms,” doctoral dissertation, of Science, 2010.
Dept. Computer Science and Eng., Helsinki Univ. of 12. M. Hevery and A. Abrons, “Declarative Web-
Technology, 2006. Applications without Server: Demonstration of How
5. J. Kuuskeri and T. Mikkonen, “Partitioning Web Ap- a Fully Functional Web-Application can be Built in
plications between the Server and the Client,” J. Web an Hour with only HTML, CSS & <angular/> Java-
Eng., vol. 9, no. 3, 2010, pp. 207–226. Script Library,” Proc. Object-Oriented Programming,

computer.org/ITPro 35
 THE FUTURE OF WEB APPS
Systems, Languages & Applications (OOPSLA 09), ACM
Press, 2009, pp. 801–802.
13. G. Toffetti et al., “State-of-the-Art and Trends in the
Systematic Development of Rich Internet Applica-
tions,” J. Web Eng., vol. 10, no. 1, 2011, pp. 70–86.
14. M. Linaje, J.C. Preciado, and F. Sanchez-Figueroa,
“Engineering Rich Internet Application User Inter-
faces over Legacy Web Models,” IEEE Internet Comput-
ing, vol. 11, no. 6, 2007, pp. 53–59.
15. C. Kroiss, N. Koch, and A. Knapp, “UWE4JSF: A
Model-Driven Generation Approach for Web Ap-
plications,” Proc. 9th Int’l Conf. Web Eng. (ICWE 09),
LNCS 5648, Springer, 2009, pp. 493–496.
16. S. Meliá et al., “A Model-Driven Development
for GWT-Based Rich Internet Applications with
OOH4RIA,” Proc. 8th Int’l Conf. Web Eng. (ICWE 08),
IEEE Press, 2008, pp. 13–23.
Markku Laine is a doctoral student in the Department
of Media Technology at the Aalto University, Finland.
His research interests include declarative Web applica-
tion development and Web performance optimization.
Laine received his MSc in communications engineering
PURPOSE: The IEEE Computer Society is the world’s largest
association of computing professionals and is the leading provider
of technical information in the field.
MEMBERSHIP: Members receive the monthly magazine Computer,
discounts, and opportunities to serve (all activities are led by
volunteer members). Membership is open to all IEEE members,
affiliate society members, and others interested in the computer field.
COMPUTER SOCIETY WEBSITE: www.computer.org
Next Board Meeting: 13–14 Nov., New Brunswick, NJ, USA
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
President: Sorel Reisman*
President-Elect: John W. Walz;* Past President: James D. Isaak;* VP,
Standards Activities: Roger U. Fujii;† Secretary: Jon Rokne (2nd VP);* VP,
Educational Activities: Elizabeth L. Burd;* VP, Member & Geographic
Activities: Rangachar Kasturi;† VP, Publications: David Alan Grier (1st VP);*
VP, Professional Activities: Paul K. Joannou;* VP, Technical & Conference
Activities: Paul R. Croll;† Treasurer: James W. Moore, CSDP;* 2011–2012 IEEE
Division VIII Director: Susan K. (Kathy) Land, CSDP;† 2010–2011 IEEE Division
V Director: Michael R. Williams;† 2011 IEEE Division Director V Director-
Elect: James W. Moore, CSDP*
*voting member of the Board of Governors †nonvoting member of the Board of Governors Educational Activities: Tariq S. Durrani; VP, Membership & Geographic
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Term Expiring 2011: Elisa Bertino, Jose Castillo-Velázquez, George V.
Cybenko, Ann DeMarle, David S. Ebert, Hironori Kasahara, Steven L. Tanimoto Land, CSDP; President, IEEE-USA: Ronald G. Jensen
Term Expiring 2012: Elizabeth L. Burd, Thomas M. Conte, Frank E.
Ferrante, Jean-Luc Gaudiot, Paul K. Joannou, Luis Kun, James W. Moore
Term Expiring 2013: Pierre Bourque, Dennis J. Frailey, Atsuhiro Goto,
André Ivanov, Dejan S. Milojicic, Jane Chu Prey, Charlene (Chuck) Walrad
36 IT Pro September/October 2011
from the Aalto University. Contact him at markku.laine@
aalto.fi.
Denis Shestakov is a postdoctoral researcher in the Depart-
ment of Media Technology at the Aalto University, Finland.
His research interests span Web data management and massive
data processing, with a focus on scalable Web agents. Shesta-
kov received his PhD in computer science from the University
of Turku, Finland. Contact him at denis.shestakov@aalto.fi.
Evgenia Litvinova is a research assistant in the De-
partment of Media Technology at the Aalto University,
Finland. Her research interests include end-user Web
development and Web usability. Litvinova received her
MSc in computer science from the University of Eastern
Finland. Contact her at evgenia.samochadina@aalto.fi.
Petri Vuorimaa is a full professor in the Department of
Media Technology at the Aalto University, Finland. His
research interests include Web-based services, smart spaces,
and mobile media applications. Vuorimaa received his DSc
in computer science from the Tampere University of Tech-
nology, Finland. Contact him at petri.vuorimaa@aalto.fi.
EXECUTIVE STAFF
Executive Director: Angela R. Burgess; Associate Executive Director,
Director, Governance: Anne Marie Kelly; Director, Finance &
Accounting: John Miller; Director, Information Technology & Services:
Ray Kahn; Director, Membership Development: Violet S. Doan; Director,
Products & Services: Evan Butterfield
COMPUTER SOCIETY OFFICES
Washington, D.C.: 2001 L St., Ste. 700, Washington, D.C. 20036-4928
Phone:




t
Fax: +1 202 728 9614
Email: hq.ofc@computer.org
Los Alamitos: 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314
Phone:




t
Email: help@computer.org
MEMBERSHIP & PUBLICATION ORDERS
Phone:




t
Fax:




t
Email: help@computer.org
Asia/Pacific: Watanabe Building, 1-4-2 Minami-Aoyama, Minato-ku, Tokyo
107-0062, Japan
Phone:




t
Fax: +81 3 3408 3553
Email: tokyo.ofc@computer.org
IEEE OFFICERS
President: Moshe Kam; President-Elect: Gordon W. Day; Past President:
Pedro A. Ray; Secretary: Roger D. Pollard; Treasurer: Harold L. Flescher;
President, Standards Association Board of Governors: Steven M. Mills; VP,
Activities: Howard E. Michel; VP, Publication Services & Products: David
A. Hodges; VP, Technical Activities: Donna L. Hudson; IEEE Division V
Director: Michael R. Williams; IEEE Division VIII Director: Susan K. (Kathy)
revised 24 August 2011