@proceedings{7771,
  editor       = {{Engels, Gregor and Luckey, Markus and Pretschner, Alexander and H. Reussner, Ralf}},
  publisher    = {{Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)}},
  title        = {{{Software Engineering 2010 - Workshop Proceedings (inkl. Doktoranden Symposium), Paderborn (Germany)}}},
  volume       = {{P-160}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@proceedings{7772,
  editor       = {{Engels, Gregor and Luckey, Markus and Schäfer, Wilhelm}},
  publisher    = {{Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)}},
  title        = {{{Software Engineering 2010 - Proceedings, Paderborn (Germany)}}},
  volume       = {{P-159}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@proceedings{7773,
  editor       = {{Engels, Gregor and Karagiannis, Dimitris and C. Mayr, Heinrich}},
  publisher    = {{Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)}},
  title        = {{{Modellierung 2010, Klagenfurt (Österreich)}}},
  volume       = {{P-161}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8024,
  author       = {{Christ, Fabian and Bals, Jan-Christopher and Engels, Gregor and Gerth, Christian and Luckey, Markus}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the 48th International Conference on Objects, Models, Components and Patterns (TOOLS'10), Málaga (Spain)}},
  pages        = {{21--40}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{A Generic Meta-Model-based Approach for Specifying Framework Functionality and Usage}}},
  doi          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13953-6_2}},
  volume       = {{6141}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8025,
  author       = {{Engels, Gregor and Lewerentz, Claus and Schäfer, Wilhelm and Schürr, Andy and Westfechtel, Bernhard}},
  booktitle    = {{Graph Transformations and Model-Driven Engineering}},
  pages        = {{1--5}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Graph Transformations and Model-Driven Engineering: The Merits of Manfred Nagl}}},
  volume       = {{5765}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8026,
  author       = {{Engels, Gregor and Salger, Frank}},
  booktitle    = {{In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), New Ideas and Emergent Results program, May 2010, Cape Town (South Africa)}},
  pages        = {{211--214}},
  publisher    = {{ACM New York, NY, USA}},
  title        = {{{Knowledge Transfer in Global Software Development - Leveraging Acceptance Test Case Specifications}}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8028,
  abstract     = {{Version management of process models requires that changes can be resolved by applying change operations. Conflict detection is an important part of version management and the minimization of the number of detected conflicts also reduces the overhead when resolving changes. As not every syntactic conflict leads to a conflict when taking into account model semantics, a computation of conflicts solely on the syntax leads to an unnecessary high number of conflicts. In this paper, we introduce the notion of syntactic and semantic conflicts for change operations of process models. We provide a method how to efficiently compute conflicts, using a term formalization of process models. Using this approach, we can significantly reduce the number of overall conflicts and thereby reduce the amount of work for the user when resolving conflicts.}},
  author       = {{Gerth, Christian and Küster, Jochen and Luckey, Markus and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS'10)}},
  number       = {{Part II}},
  pages        = {{93--107}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Precise Detection of Conflicting Change Operations using Process Model Terms}}},
  doi          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16129-2_8}},
  volume       = {{6395}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8029,
  author       = {{Gerth, Christian and Luckey, Markus and Küster, Jochen and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the IEEE 7th International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'10)}},
  pages        = {{57--64}},
  publisher    = {{IEEE Computer Society}},
  title        = {{{Detection of Semantically Equivalent Fragments for Business Process Model Change Management}}},
  doi          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SCC.2010.38}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8030,
  author       = {{Heinemann, Marianne and Duwe, Bettina and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Software & Systems Engineering Essentials (SEE) 2010}},
  pages        = {{37--56}},
  publisher    = {{Technische Universität München}},
  title        = {{{Enriching RUP with key success factors for large-scale custom software development projects}}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8031,
  author       = {{Heinemann, Marianne and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Integration von Vorgehensmodellen und Projektmanagement}},
  pages        = {{132--142}},
  publisher    = {{Shaker Verlag}},
  title        = {{{Auswahl projektspezifischer Vorgehensstrategien}}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8033,
  abstract     = {{Version management of business process models requires that changes can be resolved by applying change operations. In order to give a user maximal freedom concerning the application order of change operations, position parameters of change operations must be computed dynamically during change resolution. In such an approach, change operations with computed position parameters must be applicable on the model and dependencies and conflicts of change operations must be taken into account because otherwise invalid models can be constructed. In this paper, we study the concept of partially specified change operations where parameters are computed dynamically. We provide a formalization for partially specified change operations using graph transformation and provide a concept for their applicability. Based on this, we study potential dependencies and conflicts of change operations and show how these can be taken into account within change resolution. Using our approach, a user can resolve changes of business process models without being unnecessarily restricted to a certain order.}},
  author       = {{Küster, Jochen and Gerth, Christian and Engels, Gregor}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA'10)}},
  pages        = {{201--216}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Dynamic Computation of Change Operations in Version Management of Business Process Models}}},
  doi          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13595-8_17}},
  volume       = {{6138}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8034,
  author       = {{Engels, Gregor and Sauer, Stefan}},
  booktitle    = {{Graph Transformations and Model-Driven Engineering}},
  editor       = {{Engels, Gregor and Lewerentz, Claus and Schäfer, Wilhelm and Schürr, Andy and Westfechtel, Bernhard}},
  pages        = {{411--440}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{A Meta-Method for Defining Software Engineering Methods}}},
  doi          = {{https://groups.uni-paderborn.de/fg-engels/Publications/10.1007/978-3-642-17322-6_18}},
  volume       = {{5765}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}

@inproceedings{8037,
  author       = {{Salger, Frank and Engels, Gregor and Hofmann, Alexander}},
  booktitle    = {{Proceedings ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Software Engineering in Practice Track, Cape Town, South Africa (ICSE'10)}},
  pages        = {{29--38}},
  publisher    = {{ACM New York, NY, USA}},
  title        = {{{Assessments in Global Software Development: A Tailorable Framework for Industrial Projects}}},
  doi          = {{http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1810295.1810301}},
  volume       = {{2}},
  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}},
}

@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}},
}

@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{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{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{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}},
}