@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}},
}

@inproceedings{8446,
  author       = {{Güldali, Baris and Sauer, Stefan and Winkelhane, Peter and Jahnich, Michael and Funke, Holger}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test (AST 2010), ICSE Workshop}},
  pages        = {{119--126}},
  publisher    = {{ACM Press}},
  title        = {{{Pattern-based Generation of Test Plans for Open Distributed Processing Systems}}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8447,
  author       = {{Brüseke, Frank and Sancar, Yavuz and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of Software-Qualitätsmodellierung und -bewertung (SQMB '10), Paderborn, Germany}},
  pages        = {{22--31}},
  publisher    = {{Technische Universität München}},
  title        = {{{Architecture-Driven Derivation of Performance Metrics}}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8448,
  author       = {{Güldali, Baris and Mlynarski, Michael and Sancar, Yavuz}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of 3th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops}},
  pages        = {{28--36}},
  publisher    = {{IEEE Computer Society}},
  title        = {{{Effort Comparison of Model-based Testing Scenarios}}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8449,
  author       = {{Schnelte, Matthias and Güldali, Baris}},
  booktitle    = {{INFORMATIK 2010, Beiträge der 40. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI)}},
  pages        = {{(accepted for publication)}},
  publisher    = {{Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)}},
  title        = {{{Test Case Generation for Visual Contracts Using AI Planning}}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@proceedings{7775,
  editor       = {{Meixner, Gerrit and Görlich, Daniel and Breiner, Kai and Hußmann, Heinrich and Pleuß, Andreas and Sauer, Stefan and Van den Bergh, Jan}},
  title        = {{{Proceedings of the Workshop on Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces (MDDAUI'09), Sanibel Island (FL, USA)}}},
  volume       = {{439}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@proceedings{7777,
  editor       = {{Engels, Gregor and H. Reussner, Ralf and Momm, Christof and Sauer, Stefan}},
  publisher    = {{Karlsruhe}},
  title        = {{{Proceedings of Design for Future - 1. Workshop des GI-Arbeitskreises "Langlebige Softwaresysteme (L2S2)"}}},
  volume       = {{537}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@inproceedings{8009,
  abstract     = {{In model-driven development approaches, process models are used at different levels of abstraction and are described by different languages. Similar to other software artifacts, process models are developed in team environments and underlie constant change. This requires reusable techniques for the detection of changes between different process models and the computation of dependencies and conflicts between changes. In this paper, we propose a framework for the construction of process model change management solutions that provides generic techniques for the detection of differences and the computation of dependencies and conflicts between changes. The framework contains an abstract representation for process models that serves as a common denominator for different process models. In addition, we show how the framework is instantiated exemplarily for BPMN.}},
  author       = {{Gerth, Christian and Küster, Jochen and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS'09). Denver (CO, USA)}},
  pages        = {{152--166}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Language-Independent Change Management of Process Models}}},
  doi          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_12}},
  volume       = {{5795 }},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@inproceedings{8010,
  author       = {{Assmann, Martin and Haack, Markus and Scheider, Hendrik and vom Hagen, Nico and Zacharias, Roger}},
  booktitle    = {{Transform IT: Optimale Geschäftsprozesse durch eine transformierende IT}},
  pages        = {{97--126}},
  publisher    = {{Gabler}},
  title        = {{{SOA-Business Case}}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@inproceedings{8011,
  abstract     = {{Enterprises are transforming into enterprises which follow from a business as well as from an IT perspective a service-oriented paradigm. This change towards service-oriented enterprise and IT architectures has to be reflected in the methodologies of developing whole application landscapes as well as individual applications. Quasar (Quality Software Architecture) has been developed as the standard architecture and development method of Capgemini sd&m for individual applications. For the development of service-oriented enterprise application landscapes, Quasar Enterprise has been designed. Both Quasar and Quasar Enterprise are integrated with each other within a holistic software engineering method to seamlessly cover the full development lifecycle of service-oriented application landscapes, from business modeling and service design to actual software development. In this paper, we illustrate how a company-wide ontology of development artifacts serves as the key feature for integrating both methods.}},
  author       = {{Baumann, Andrea and Engels, Gregor and Hofmann, Alexander and Sauer, Stefan and Willkomm, Johannes}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the First NAF Academy Working Conference on Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation (PRET 2009), Amsterdam (The Netherlands)}},
  pages        = {{1--17}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{A Holistic Software Engineering Method for Service-Oriented Application Landscape Development}}},
  doi          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01859-6}},
  volume       = {{28}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@inproceedings{8012,
  author       = {{Meixner, Gerrit and Görlich, Daniel and Breiner, Kai and Hußmann, Heinrich and Pleuß, Andreas and Sauer, Stefan and Van den Bergh, Jan}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces}},
  pages        = {{503--504}},
  publisher    = {{ACM Press}},
  title        = {{{Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces 2009}}},
  doi          = {{http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1502650.1502737}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@inproceedings{8013,
  abstract     = {{Version management of models is common for structural diagrams such as class diagrams but still challenging for behavioral models such as process models. For process models, conflicts of change operations are difficult to resolve because often dependencies to other change operations exist. As a consequence, conflicts and dependencies between change operations must be computed and shown to the user who can then take them into account while creating a consolidated version. In this paper, we introduce the concepts of dependencies and conflicts of change operations for process models and provide a method how to compute them. We then discuss different possibilities for resolving conflicts. Using our approach it is possible to enable version management of process models with minimal manual intervention of the user.}},
  author       = {{Küster, Jochen and Gerth, Christian and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Model-Driven Architecture Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA'09)}},
  pages        = {{158--173}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Dependent and Conflicting Change Operations of Process Models}}},
  doi          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4_12}},
  volume       = {{5562}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@inproceedings{8014,
  author       = {{Engels, Gregor and Geisen, Silke and Sauer, Stefan and Port, Olaf}},
  booktitle    = {{Informatik 2009 - Im Focus das Leben}},
  pages        = {{458}},
  publisher    = {{Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)}},
  title        = {{{Sicherstellen der Betrachtung von nicht-funktionalen Anforderungen in SCRUM-Prozessen durch Etablierung von Feedback}}},
  volume       = {{154}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}

@inproceedings{8015,
  author       = {{Salger, Frank and Sauer, Stefan and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the 2nd India Software Engineering Conference (ISEC'09)}},
  pages        = {{129--130}},
  publisher    = {{ACM Press}},
  title        = {{{Integrated Specification and Quality Assurance for Large Business Information Systems}}},
  year         = {{2009}},
}