@book{7507, author = {{Kremer, Marion and Engels, Gregor and Hofmann, Alexander and Hohwiller, Jörg and E. Nandico, Oliver and Nötzold, Thomas and Prott, Karl and Schlegel, Diethelm and Seidl, Andreas and Wolf, Thomas}}, publisher = {{Capgemini CSD Research, Offenbach 2012}}, title = {{{Quasar 3.0 - A Situational Approach to Software Engineering}}}, year = {{2012}}, } @inbook{7557, abstract = {{Software systems are part of our everyday life and they become more complex day by day. The ever-growing complexity of software and high quality requirements pose tough challenges to quality assurance. The quality of a software system can be measured by software testing. However, if manually done, testing is a time-consuming and error-prone task. Especially test case design and test execution are the most cost-intensive activities in testing. In the previous 20 years, many automation tools have been introduced for automating test execution by using test scripts. However, the effort for creating and maintaining test scripts remains. Model-based testing (MBT) aims at improving this part by systematizing and automating the test case design. Thereby, test cases or automatable test scripts can be generated systematically from test models. MBT is already known for several years, but it currently gains a great momentum due to advanced tool support and innovative methodological approaches. This chapter aims at giving an overview of MBT and summarizes recent achievements in MBT. Experiences with using the MBT approach are illustrated by reporting on some success stories. Finally, open issues and future research challenges are discussed.}}, author = {{Mlynarski, Michael and Güldali, Baris and Weißleder, Stephan and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Advances in Computers}}, editor = {{ Hurson, Ali and Memon, Atif}}, pages = {{1 -- 39}}, publisher = {{Elsevier}}, title = {{{Model-Based Testing: Achievements and Future Challenges}}}, doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396535-6.00001-6}}, volume = {{86}}, year = {{2012}}, } @inproceedings{8475, author = {{Huma , Zille and Gerth , Christian and Engels, Gregor and Juwig, Oliver }}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the Forum at the CAiSE'12 Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering}}, pages = {{90----97}}, publisher = {{CEUR-WS.org}}, title = {{{A UML-based Rich Service Description Language for Automatic Service Discovery of Heterogeneous Service Partners}}}, doi = {{http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-855/paper11.pdf}}, volume = {{855}}, year = {{2012}}, } @inproceedings{8477, author = {{Geisen , Silke and Luckey , Markus and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of 19. GI-WIVM Workshop: Qualitätsmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle}}, pages = {{111--120}}, publisher = {{Shaker Verlag}}, title = {{{Ein Ansatz zur dynamischen Qualitätsmessung, -bewertung und Anpassung von Software Engineering Methoden}}}, year = {{2012}}, } @inproceedings{8483, author = {{Luckey , Markus and Thanos , Christian and Gerth, Christian and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on EVALUATION for SELF-ADAPTIVE and SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS at SASO'12}}, title = {{{Multi-Staged Quality Assurance for Self-Adaptive Systems}}}, year = {{2012}}, } @inproceedings{26787, author = {{Khaluf, Lial and Gerth, Christian and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'11)}}, pages = {{521--535}}, publisher = {{Springer Verlag}}, title = {{{Pattern-Based Modeling and Formalizing of Business Process Quality Constraints}}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8046, author = {{Engels, Gregor and Kremer, Marion}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings der41. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik - Informatik 2011;}}, publisher = {{GI}}, title = {{{Situational Software Engineering: Ein Rahmenwerk für eine situationsgerechte Auswahl von Entwicklungsmethoden und Vorgehensmodellen}}}, volume = {{192}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8047, abstract = {{Der Kostendruck einerseits und die Verfügbarkeit des Internets andererseits führen dazu, dass Softwaresysteme auf Services aus der Cloud zurückgreifen (müssen bzw. können). Dies gilt für alle Anwendungsbereiche und somit insbesondere auch für die Software im Auto. Aber wie sorge ich dafür, dass die Services aus der Cloud zu meinem Softwaresystem passen und die Anforderungen erfüllen? Der Vortrag diskutiert aktuelle Ansätze der konstruktiven und analytischen Qualitätssicherung, um durch Maßnahmen sowohl zur Entwicklungs- als auch Laufzeit eine hohe Qualität beim Einsatz von Services aus der Cloud zu erzielen. Insbesondere wird über aktuelle Arbeiten im neuen DFG Sonderforschungsbereich 901 "On-the-Fly Computing" berichtet.}}, author = {{Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings der 41. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik - Informatik 2011}}, publisher = {{GI}}, title = {{{Services aus der Cloud = Fahren im Nebel? Wie minimiere ich die Risiken und erreiche hohe Qualität?}}}, volume = {{192}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8048, author = {{Gerth, Christian and Luckey, Markus and Küster, Jochen and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'11)}}, pages = {{218--225}}, publisher = {{IEEE Computer Society}}, title = {{{Precise Mappings between Business Process Models in Versioning Scenarios}}}, doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SCC.2011.65}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8049, author = {{Heinemann, Marianne and Palme, Markus and Rothmann, Andreas and Salger, Frank and Schönke, Jürgen and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Software Engineering 2011}}, pages = {{33--36}}, publisher = {{Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)}}, title = {{{Selektionswerkzeug zur Auswahl projektspezifischer Vorgehensstrategien}}}, volume = {{P-183}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8050, abstract = {{The quality of business processes can be checked by verifying their compliance with specific quality constraints. These constraints represent a set of required temporal and logical relationships between different steps of business processes. Quality constraints are usually formulated as informal texts, which makes them difficult to be verified, when business processes become complex. One way to solve this problem is by automating the verification of quality constraints on business processes by applying model checking. To apply model checking, both business processes and quality constraints have to be formalized. In this paper, we define a new visual language for modeling quality constraints and we provide a pattern-based translation for quality constraint models into Computation Tree Logic formulas.}}, author = {{Khaluf, Lial and Gerth, Christian and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Advanced Information System Engineering (CAiSE'11)}}, pages = {{521--535}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Pattern-Based Modeling and Formalizing of Business Process Quality Constraints}}}, doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21640-4_39}}, volume = {{6741}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8052, author = {{Luckey, Markus and Nagel, Benjamin and Gerth, Christian and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceeding of the 6th international symposium on Software engineering for adaptive and self-managing systems}}, pages = {{30--39}}, publisher = {{ACM}}, title = {{{Adapt Cases: Extending Use Cases for Adaptive Systems}}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8053, author = {{Luckey, Markus and Gerth, Christian and Soltenborn, Christian and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC'11)}}, publisher = {{ACM}}, title = {{{QUAASY - QUality Assurance of Adaptive SYstems}}}, doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1998582.1998617}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8054, author = {{Bandener, Nils and Soltenborn, Christian and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE 2010)}}, pages = {{357--376}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Extending DMM Behavior Specifications for Visual Execution and Debugging}}}, doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_24}}, volume = {{6563}}, year = {{2011}}, } @article{7354, abstract = {{Acceptance testing is a time-consuming task for complex software systems that have to fulfill a large number of requirements. To reduce this effort, we have developed a widely automated method for deriving test plans from requirements that are expressed in natural language. It consists of three stages: annotation, clustering, and test plan specification. The general idea is to exploit redundancies and implicit relationships in requirements specifications. Multi-viewpoint techniques based on RM-ODP (Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing) are employed for specifying the requirements. We then use linguistic analysis techniques, requirements clustering algorithms, and pattern-based requirements collection to reduce the total effort of testing against the requirements specification. In particular, we use linguistic analysis for extracting and annotating the actor, process and object of a requirements statement. During clustering, a similarity function is computed as a measure for the overlap of requirements. In the test plan specification stage, our approach provides capabilities for semi-automatically deriving test plans and acceptance criteria from the clustered informal textual requirements. Two patterns are applied to compute a suitable order of test activities. The generated test plans consist of a sequence of test steps and asserts that are executed or checked in the given order. We also present the supporting prototype tool TORC, which is available open source. For the evaluation of the approach, we have conducted a case study in the field of acceptance testing of a national electronic identification system. In summary, we report on lessons learned how linguistic analysis and clustering techniques can help testers in understanding the relations between requirements and for improving test planning.}}, author = {{Güldali, Baris and Funke, Holger and Sauer, Stefan and Engels, Gregor}}, issn = {{0963-9314}}, journal = {{Software Quality Journal}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{771--799}}, publisher = {{Springer Nature}}, title = {{{TORC: test plan optimization by requirements clustering}}}, doi = {{10.1007/s11219-011-9149-4}}, volume = {{19}}, year = {{2011}}, } @article{7355, abstract = {{Dynamic Meta Modeling (DMM) is a visual semantics specification technique targeted at languages based on a metamodel. A DMM specification consists of a runtime metamodel and operational rules which describe how instances of the runtime metamodel change over time. A known deficiency of the DMM approach is that it does not support the refinement of a DMM specification, e.g., in the case of defining the semantics for a refined and extended domain-specific language (DSL). Up to now, DMM specifications could only be reused by adding or removing DMM rules. In this paper, we enhance DMM such that DMM rules can override other DMM rules, similar to a method being overridden in a subclass, and we show how rule overriding can be realized with the graph transformation tool GROOVE. We argue that rule overriding does not only have positive impact on reusability, but also improves the intuitive understandability of DMM semantics specifications.}}, author = {{Soltenborn, Christian and Engels, Gregor}}, issn = {{1045-926X}}, journal = {{Journal of Visual Languages & Computing}}, number = {{3}}, pages = {{233--250}}, publisher = {{Elsevier BV}}, title = {{{Using rule overriding to improve reusability and understandability of Dynamic Meta Modeling specifications}}}, doi = {{10.1016/j.jvlc.2010.12.005}}, volume = {{22}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{8471, abstract = {{Performance is an important quality attribute for business information systems. When a tester has spotted a performance error, the error is passed to the software developers to fix it. However, in component-based software development the tester has to do blame analysis first, i. e. the tester has to decide, which party is responsible to fix the error. If the error is a design or deployment issue, it can be assigned to the software architect or the system deployer. If the error is specific to a component, it needs to be assigned to the corresponding component developer. An accurate blame analysis is important, because wrong assignments of errors will cause a loss of time and money. Our approach aims at doing blame analysis for performance errors by comparing performance metrics obtained in performance testing and performance prediction. We use performance prediction values as expected values for individual components. For performance prediction we use the Palladio approach. By this means, our approach evaluates each component’s performance in a certain test case. If the component performs poorly, its component developer needs to fix the component or the architect replaces the component with a faster one. If no omponent performs poorly, we can deduce that there is a design or deployment issue and the architecture needs to be changed. In this paper, we present an exemplary blame analysis based on a web shop system. The example shows the feasibility of our approach.}}, author = {{Brüseke, Frank and Becker, Steffen and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Component-Oriented Programming (WCOP; satellite event of the CompArch 2011), Boulder Colorado, CO (USA)}}, pages = {{25--32}}, publisher = {{ACM}}, title = {{{Palladio-based performance blame analysis}}}, doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2000292.2000298}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{652, abstract = {{In the development process of service-oriented systems, business process models are used at different levels. Typically, high-level business process models that describe business requirements and needs are stepwise refined to the IT level by different business modelers and software architects. As a result, different process model versions must be compared and merged by means of model version control. An important prerequisite for process model version control is an elaborated matching approach that results in precise mappings between different process model versions. The challenge of such an approach is to deal with syntactically different process models that are semantically equivalent. For that purpose, matching techniques must consider the semantics of process modeling languages.In this paper, we present a matching approach for process models in a versioning scenario. Based on a term formalization of process models, we enable an efficient and effective way to match syntactically different but semantically equivalent process models resulting in precise mappings.}}, author = {{Gerth, Christian and Luckey, Markus and Küster, Jochen and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International Conference on Service Computingt (SCC)}}, pages = {{218----225}}, title = {{{Precise Mappings between Business Process Models in Versioning Scenarios}}}, doi = {{10.1109/SCC.2011.65}}, year = {{2011}}, } @inproceedings{2994, author = {{Schäfer, Wilhelm and Trächtler, Ansgar and Birattari, Mauro and Blömer, Johannes and Dorigo, Marco and Engels, Gregor and O'Grady, Rehan and Platzner, Marco and Rammig, Franz and Reif, Wolfgang}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering research - FoSER '10}}, isbn = {{9781450304276}}, publisher = {{ACM Press}}, title = {{{Engineering self-coordinating software intensive systems}}}, doi = {{10.1145/1882362.1882428}}, year = {{2010}}, } @proceedings{7770, editor = {{Engels, Gregor and Lewerentz, Claus and Schäfer, Wilhelm and Schürr, Andy and Westfechtel, Bernhard}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Graph Transformations and Model-Driven Engineering - Essays Dedicated to Manfred Nagl on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday}}}, doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17322-6}}, volume = {{5765}}, year = {{2010}}, }