Model Comparison: a Systematic Mapping Study

Context: Model comparison plays a central role in many software engineering activities. However, a comprehensive understanding about the state-of-art is still required. Goal: This paper, therefore, aims at classifying, identifying publication fora, and performing thematic analysis of the current literature in model comparison for creating an extensive and detailed understanding about this area, thereby determining gaps by graphing and pinpointing in which research areas and for which study types a shortage of publications still exits. Method: We have conducted a systematic mapping study to scrutinize those contributions produced over time, which research topics have most investigated, and which research methods that have been applied. For this, we have followed well-established empirical guidelines to define and apply a systematic mapping study. Results: The results are: (1) majority of studies (14 out of 40) provide generic model comparison techniques, rather than comparison techniques for UML diagrams; (2) a categorization and quantification of the current studies in a variety of dimensions; and (3) an overview of current research topics and trends.

[1]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Using Mapping Studies in Software Engineering , 2008, PPIG.

[2]  Konrad Voigt,et al.  Structural graph-based metamodel matching , 2011 .

[3]  Bernd Brügge,et al.  Supporting Distributed Software Development with fine-grained Artefact Management , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE'06).

[4]  Hamida Seba,et al.  A module-based approach for structural matching of process models , 2012, 2012 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA).

[5]  Michel R. V. Chaudron,et al.  How effective is UML modeling ? , 2012, Software & Systems Modeling.

[6]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Using mapping studies as the basis for further research - A participant-observer case study , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[7]  Marcela Genero,et al.  UML consistency rules: a systematic mapping study , 2014, EASE '14.

[8]  Manuel Wimmer,et al.  A survey on model versioning approaches , 2009, Int. J. Web Inf. Syst..

[9]  Yvan Labiche,et al.  Requirement-based Software Testing With the UML: A Systematic Mapping Study , 2012, ICSEA 2012.

[10]  Michel R. V. Chaudron,et al.  A survey into the rigor of UML use and its perceived impact on quality and productivity , 2008, ESEM '08.

[11]  Ivan Porres,et al.  Difference and Union of Models , 2003, UML.

[12]  Hamza Onoruoiza Salami,et al.  UML Artifacts Reuse: State of the Art , 2014, ArXiv.

[13]  André van der Hoek,et al.  Palantir: Early Detection of Development Conflicts Arising from Parallel Code Changes , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[14]  Marian Petre,et al.  UML in practice , 2013, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[15]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  Turning Conflicts into Collaboration , 2012, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[16]  Stuart Kent,et al.  Model Driven Engineering , 2002, IFM.

[17]  Jon Whittle,et al.  Synthesizing hierarchical state machines from expressive scenario descriptions , 2010, TSEM.

[18]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  The educational value of mapping studies of software engineering literature , 2010, 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering.

[19]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in Software Engineering , 2012, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[20]  James R. Cordy,et al.  A Survey of Model Comparison Approaches and Applications , 2013, MODELSWARD.

[21]  Richard F. Paige,et al.  Different models for model matching: An analysis of approaches to support model differencing , 2009, 2009 ICSE Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models.

[22]  Kai Petersen,et al.  Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering , 2008, EASE.