AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED CASE WORKBENCHES: A PRELIMINARY CASE STUDY

V. Deufemia,∗ C. Gravino,∗ and M. Risi∗

References

  1. [1] A. Fuggetta, A classification of CASE technology, IEEE Com-puter, 26(12), 1993, 25–38.
  2. [2] J. Ilvari, Why are CASE tools not used?, Communication ofthe ACM, 39(10), 1996, 94–103.
  3. [3] MetaCase Consulting, Metaedit+, www.metacase.com, (2001).
  4. [4] G. Costagliola, V. Deufemia, F. Ferrucci, & C. Gravino, Con-structing Meta-CASE workbenches by exploiting visual lan-guage generators, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,32(3), 2006, 156–175.
  5. [5] J. Conallen, Building web applications with UML (Boston,MA: Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series, 1999).
  6. [6] G. Costagliola, V. Deufemia, & G. Polese, A framework formodelling and implementing visual notations with applica-tions to software engineering, ACM Transactions on SoftwareEngineering and Methodology, 13(4), 2004, 431–487.
  7. [7] C. Nentwich, L. Capra, W. Emmerich, & A. Finkelstein, xlinkit:a consistency checking and smart link generation service, ACMTransactions on Internet Technology, 2(2), 2002, 151–185.
  8. [8] A. Winter, B. Kullbach, & V. Riediger, An overview of theGXL graph exchange language, Lecture Notes in ComputerScience, 2269(Springer), 2002, 324–336.
  9. [9] J. Carver, L. Jaccheri, S. Morasca, & F. Shull, Issues in usingstudents in empirical studies in software engineering education,Proc. of METRICS’03, 2003, 239–249.
  10. [10] D. Reifer, Ten deadly risks in internet and intranet softwaredevelopment, IEEE Software, 18(2), 2002, 12–14.
  11. [11] L.C. Briand, C. Bunse, J.W. Daly, & C. Differding, Technicalcommunication: An experimental comparison of the maintain-ability of object-oriented and structured design documents,Empirical Software Engineering, 2(3), 1997, 291–312.
  12. [12] K.L. Norman & E. Panizzi, Levels of automation and userparticipation in usability testing, Interacting with Computers,18(2), 2006, 246–264.
  13. [13] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Host, B. Ohlsson, B. Regnel, &A. Wesslen, Experimentation in software engineering – Anintroduction (Amsterdam: Kluwer, 2000).
  14. [14] F. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and useracceptance of information technology, Management Informa-tion Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 1989, 318–339.
  15. [15] C.K. Riemenschneider, B.C. Hardgrave, & F.D. Davis, Ex-plaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: Acomparison of five theoretical models, IEEE Transactions onSoftware Engineering, 28(12), 2002, 1135–1145.
  16. [16] T. Dyb˚a, N.B. Moe, & E.M. Mikkelsen, An empirical Investi-gation on factors affecting software developer acceptance andutilization of electronic process guides, Proc. of METRICS’04,2004, 220–231.
  17. [17] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, Fourth Edition (NewYork: The Free Press, 1995).181
  18. [18] A.N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire design, interviewing and at-titude measurement (London: Pinter Publishers, 1992).
  19. [19] P.G. Sorenson, J.P. Tremblay, & A.J. McAllister, The metaviewsystem for many specification environments, IEEE Software,5(2), 1988, 30–38.
  20. [20] R.I. Ferguson, The beginner’s guide to IPSYS TBK, Occa-sional Paper 93/3, University of Sounderland, http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/rif/metacase/metacase.tools.html (1993).
  21. [21] J. Ebert, R. Suttenbach, & I. Uhe, Meta-CASE in practice: Acase for KOGGE, Proc. International Conference CaiSE’97,LNCS, 1250(Springer), 1997, 203–216.
  22. [22] J. de Lara & H. Vangheluwe, Using AToM3 as a meta-CASEtool, Proc. ICEIS’02, 2002, 642–649.
  23. [23] J. Grundy, J. Hosking, J. Huh, & K. N.-L. Li, Marama: aneclipse meta-toolset for generating multi-view environments,Proc. of ICSE’08, 2008, 819–822.
  24. [24] C. Amelunxen, A. Konigs, T. Rotschke, & A. Schurr,MOFLON: A standard-compliant metamodelling frameworkwith graph transformations, Proc. of ECMDA-FA’06, LNCS,4066(Springer), 2006, 361–375.

Important Links:

Go Back