@inproceedings{8041, author = {{von der Maßen, Thomas and Wübbeke, Andreas}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of Software Engineering 2010 (SE2010)}}, pages = {{17--18}}, publisher = {{Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)}}, title = {{{Verteiltes Testen heterogener Systemlandschaften}}}, volume = {{P-159}}, year = {{2010}}, } @techreport{8219, abstract = {{Modern business process modeling environments support distributed development by means of model version control, i.e., comparison and merging of two different model versions. This is a challenging task since most modeling languages support an almost arbitrary creation of process models. Thus, in multi-developer environments, process models or parts of them are often syntactically very different but semantically equivalent. Hence, the comparison of business process models must be performed on a semantic level rather then on a syntactic level. For the domain of business process modeling, this problem is yet unsolved. This paper describes an approach that allows the semantic comparison of different business process models using a normal form. For that purpose, the process models are fully automatically translated into process model terms and normalized using a term rewriting system. The resulting normal forms can be efficiently compared. Our approach enables the semantic comparison of business process models ignoring syntactic redundancies.}}, author = {{Gerth, Christian and Luckey, Markus and Küster, Jochen and Engels, Gregor}}, publisher = {{IBM Research}}, title = {{{Detection of Semantically Equivalent Fragments for Business Process Model Change Management}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @techreport{8220, author = {{Hülsbusch, Mathias and König, Barbara and Rensink, Arend and Semenyak, Maria and Soltenborn, Christian and Wehrheim, Heike}}, publisher = {{Centre for Telematics and Information Technology of the University of Twente}}, title = {{{Full Semantics Preservation in Model Transformation - A Comparison of Proof Techniques}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{5756, author = {{Brüseke, Frank and Sancar, Yavuz and Yigitbas, Enes}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the Conference on Software & Systems Engineering Essentials 2010 (SEE 2010), Köln (Germany)}}, pages = {{277--298}}, publisher = {{Technische Universität München}}, title = {{{Erfolgsfaktoren von Testprozessbewertungsmodellen}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @article{7356, author = {{Löffler, Renate and Güldali, Baris and Geisen, Silke}}, journal = {{Softwaretechnik-Trends}}, number = {{3}}, pages = {{9--12}}, title = {{{Towards Model-based Acceptance Testing for Scrum}}}, volume = {{30}}, year = {{2010}}, } @article{7357, author = {{Güldali, Baris and Jungmayr, Stefan and Mlynarski, Michael and Neumann, Stefan and Winter, Mario}}, journal = {{OBJEKTspektrum}}, number = {{3}}, pages = {{63--69}}, title = {{{Starthilfe für modellbasiertes Testen}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @article{7358, author = {{Beulen, Dominik and Güldali, Baris and Mlynarski, Michael}}, journal = {{Softwaretechnik-Trends}}, number = {{2}}, pages = {{6--9}}, title = {{{Tabellarischer Vergleich der Prozessmodelle für modellbasiertes Testen aus Managementsicht}}}, volume = {{30}}, year = {{2010}}, } @article{7359, author = {{Späth, Melanie and Mlynarski, Michael}}, journal = {{Softwaretechnik-Trends}}, title = {{{Agiles Testen in Großprojekten mit TDD und Testaspekten: Beobachtungen und erste Erfahrungen}}}, volume = {{30}}, year = {{2010}}, } @article{7364, abstract = {{In the last years the software engineering community pays a strong interest in agile development methods. Those methods place software testing for example the Test-Driven Development method as an important task of the development process. Agile projects rely on good test automation tools. In this paper we evaluate five test automation tools for their usage in acceptance testing for web applications using Test-Driven Development.}}, author = {{Jureczko, Marian and Mlynarski, Michael}}, journal = {{Electrical Review}}, pages = {{198--202}}, title = {{{Automated acceptance testing tools for web applications using Test-Driven Development}}}, volume = {{86}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inbook{7556, author = {{Oster, Sebastian and Wübbeke, Andreas and Engels, Gregor and Schürr, Andy}}, booktitle = {{Model-Based Testing For Embedded Systems}}, editor = {{Mosterman, I. Schieferdecker, J. Zander , P.}}, pages = {{339--381}}, publisher = {{CRC Press}}, title = {{{Model-Based Software Product Lines Testing Survey}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @phdthesis{7573, abstract = {{Software Product Lines (SPL) are a development paradigm allowing the reduction of the software system development time while increasing their quality. To reach these goals, the artefacts being part of many or all software systems are developed only once and reused within the different software systems. The software systems developed by a software product line approach are called products. Like a thread the reuse of artefacts is woven into the software product line development process. As some artefacts are only used for the development of some products, these artefacts constitute the variability of the SPL. First of all, the modelling of variability has to be enabled in every artefact. Beside this, dependencies can arise between variable artefacts. The modelling of variability and dependencies also demands the redevelopment or adaption of specification techniques for these artefacts. This thesis focuses on the variability management concerning requirements and test case specification for Software Product Lines. For this purpose, existing modelling languages and specification techniques are augmented with variability instead of redeveloping similar software development artefacts over and over again. In order to augment the modelling languages by variability, a language construction process based on a meta model of the variability management is defined. In order to manage the dependencies between variable artefacts, a feature based variability management is introduced. Finally, the extension of specification techniques for requirements specifications based on use case descriptions and test specifications are described. The contribution of this thesis is substantiated by a prototypical tool support and an industrial case study.}}, author = {{Wübbeke, Andreas}}, title = {{{Variabilitätsmanagement in Anforderungs- und Testfallspezifikation für Software-Produktlinien}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8437, abstract = {{Deriving a new language L_B from an already existing one L_A is a typical task in domain-specific language engineering. Here, besides adjusting L_A's syntax, the language engineer has to modify the semantics of L_A to derive L_B's semantics. Particularly, in case of behavioral modeling languages, this is a difficult and error-prone task, as changing the behavior of language elements or adding behavior for new elements might have undesired side effects. Therefore, we propose a test-driven language derivation process. In a first step, the language engineer creates example models containing the changed or newly added elements in different contexts. For each of these models, the language engineer also precisely describes the expected behavior. In a second step, each example model and its description of behavior is transformed into an executable test case. Finally, these test cases are used when deriving the actual semantics of L_B - at any time, the language engineer can run the tests to verify whether the changes he performed on L_A's semantics indeed produce the desired behavior. In this paper, we illustrate the approach using our graph transformation-based semantics specification technique Dynamic Meta Modeling. This is once more an example where the graph transformation approach shows its strengths and appropriateness to support software engineering tasks as, e.g., model transformations, software specifications, or tool development.}}, author = {{Engels, Gregor and Soltenborn, Christian}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Graph and Model Transformation (GraMoT 2010), Berlin (Germany)}}, pages = {{240--257}}, publisher = {{European Association of Software Science and Technology}}, title = {{{Test-driven Language Derivation with Graph Transformation-based Dynamic Meta Modeling}}}, volume = {{30}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8438, author = {{Güldali, Baris and Mlynarski, Michael}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the IWK2010 Workshops: The First International Workshop on Evolution Support for Model-Based Development and Testing (EMDT2010)}}, pages = {{55--58 }}, title = {{{Agility vs. Model-based Testing: A fair Play?}}}, volume = {{646}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8439, author = {{Wübbeke, Andreas and Oster, Sebastian}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of Produktlinien im Kontext (PIK2010)}}, pages = {{to appear}}, title = {{{Verknüpfung von kombinatorischem Plattform- und individuellem Produkt-Test für Software-Produktlinien}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8440, author = {{Sancar, Yavuz and Brüseke, Frank and Voigt, Hendrik and Sauer, Stefan and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{ECOOP 2010 - Workshop on Testing Object-Oriented Software Systems (ETOOS)}}, pages = {{59--67}}, title = {{{Towards Economical Software Release Recommendations}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8441, author = {{Gerth, Christian}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the Joint Workshop of the German Research Training Groups in Computer Science}}, pages = {{183--184}}, title = {{{A Framework for Change Management of Business Process Models}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8442, author = {{Luckey, Markus and Baumann, Andrea and Méndez Fernández, Daniel and Wagner, Stefan}}, booktitle = {{Software Engineering for Secure Systems, 2010. SESS '10. ICSE Workshop}}, title = {{{Reusing Security Requirements using an Extended Quality Model}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8443, author = {{Sancar, Yavuz and Brüseke, Frank and Engels, Gregor}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of Software-Qualitätsmodellierung und -bewertung (SQMB '10), Paderborn, Germany}}, pages = {{50--57}}, publisher = {{Technische Universität München}}, title = {{{Teststufenspezifische Qualitätsattribute für die Qualitätsbewertung von nichtfunktionalen Anforderungen}}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8444, abstract = {{To be successful with global software development (GSD), development knowledge needs to be shared among the developers and stakeholders, and the quality of the exchanged information must be assured. Therefore, mature processes, methods and tools have to be in place. If a unified and integrated solution does not exist, this impedes the exchange of knowledge (and the migration of people between projects). In GSD, such a diversity can lead to new problems: offshore development teams have to repeatedly re-adjust to method variants used by the respective business units. This can lead to misinterpretation of information and risks for project success. We report on re-aligning the varying software engineering methods and unifying the methodology throughout Capgemini sd&m. We also standardized quality assurance procedures and tightly integrated them with the engineering methodology. By this, we arrived at a comprehensive company-wide Enterprise Software Engineering Model that effectively supports knowledge transfer from clients to the onshore and offshore team.}}, author = {{Salger, Frank and Sauer, Stefan and Engels, Gregor and Baumann, Andrea}}, booktitle = {{5th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2010)}}, pages = {{336--341}}, title = {{{Knowledge Transfer in Global Software Development - Leveraging Ontologies, Tools and Assessments}}}, doi = {{http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICGSE.2010.46}}, year = {{2010}}, } @inproceedings{8445, author = {{Van den Bergh, Jan and Meixner, Gerrit and Sauer, Stefan}}, booktitle = {{Proc. 5th Intl. Workshop on Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces (MDDAUI 2010)}}, pages = {{53--56}}, title = {{{MDDAUI 2010 Workshop Report}}}, volume = {{617}}, year = {{2010}}, }