Abstract
The lack of empirical knowledge about the effects of model composition techniques on developers’ effort is the key impairment for their widespread adoption in practice. This problem applies to both existing categories of model composition techniques, i.e. specification-based (e.g. Epsilon) and heuristic-based (e.g. IBM RSA) techniques. This paper reports on a controlled experiment that investigates the effort to: (1) apply both categories of model composition techniques, and (2) detect and resolve inconsistencies in the output composed models. The techniques are investigated in 144 evolution scenarios, where 2304 compositions of elements of class diagrams were produced. The results suggest that: (1) the employed heuristic-based techniques require less effort to produce the intended model than the chosen specification-based technique, (2) the correctness of the output composed models generated by the techniques is not significantly different, and (3) the use of manual heuristics for model composition outperforms their automated counterparts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Wohlin, et al.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: an Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)
Devore, J., et al.: Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Duxbury (1999)
Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.: The Goal Question Metric Paradigm. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 528–532. John Wiley and Sons (1994)
Farias, K., Garcia, A., Whittle, J.: Assessing the Impact of Aspects on Model Composition Effort. In: AOSD 2012, Saint Malo, France, pp. 73–84 (2010)
France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-Driven Development of Complex Software: A Research Roadmap. In: Future of Software Engineering at ICSE 2007, pp. 37–54 (2007)
Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure, Object Management Group (February 2010)
Whittle, J., Jayaraman, P.: Synthesizing Hierarchical State Machines from Expressive Scenario Descriptions. ACM TOSEMÂ 19(3) (January 2010)
Mens, T.: A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Engineering 28(5), 449–462 (2002)
Clarke, S.: Composition of Object-Oriented Software Design Models, PhD thesis, Dublin City University (2001)
Jørgensen, M.: Practical Guidelines for Expert-Judgment-Based Software Effort Estimation. IEEE Software, 57–63 (May 2005)
Thaker, S., Batory, D., Kitchin, D., Cook, W.: Safe Composition of Product Lines. In: 6th GPCE, Salzburg, Austria, pp. 95–104 (2007)
Klein, J., Hélouët, L., Jézéquel, J.: Semantic-based Weaving of Scenarios. In: 5th AOSD 2006, Bonn, Germany, pp. 27–38 (March 2006)
Dingel, J., Diskin, Z., Zito, A.: Understanding and Improving UML Package Merge. Journal of Soft. and Syst. Modeling 7(4), 443–467 (2008)
Lange, C., Chaudron, M.: Effects of Defects in UML Models – An Experimental Investigation. In: ICSE 2006, China, pp. 401–410 (2006)
Epsilon (2011), http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/epsilon/
IBM RSA (2011), http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/products/rsa/
Clarke, S., Baniassad, E.: Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design: The Theme Approach. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2005)
Asklund, U.: Identifying Conflicts during Structural Merge. In: Proc. Nordic Workshop Programming Environment Research, pp. 231–242 (1994)
Evaluating the Effort of Composing Design Models: A Controlled Experiment (2012), http://www.les.inf.puc-rio.br/opus/models12-app
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Farias, K., Garcia, A., Whittle, J., Chavez, C., Lucena, C. (2012). Evaluating the Effort of Composing Design Models: A Controlled Experiment. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7590. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33666-9_43
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33666-9_43
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33665-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33666-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)