Toward automatic artifact matching for tool evaluation
Article No.: 15, Pages 1 - 6
Abstract
Before performing software maintenance and evolution tasks, developers must expend significant effort to understand the design of the subject software system. Reverse engineering and reengineering tools can extract artifacts, such as class diagrams, from source code so that the effort expended on program comprehension can be greatly reduced. Choosing suitable and appropriate tools is itself a difficult process. Many metrics and benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate the quality of reengineering tools, but the process is still complicated and requires much human effort. Furthermore, ignored by most evaluation experiments and approaches is the understanding of differences and similarities of the output artifacts produced by different tools. This paper proposes a novel approach for tool evaluation making a direct comparison of the output artifacts of the chosen tools. We apply our methodology on class diagrams extracted from source code. We utilize a class matching model to automate the process. In this study, we use ten open-source programs as test cases and two open source reverse engineering tools Doxygen and StarUML. We evaluate the output of these two tools based on class matching given the same input. This approach, we believe, provides developers with good guidance in tool selection.
References
[1]
A. K. Elmagarmid, G. I. Panagiotis, S. V. Verykios, Dupplicate Record Detection: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering. Vol.19 No.1, January 2007.
[2]
L. C. Briand. The experimental paradigm in reverse engineering: Role, challenges and limitations. In Proceedings of the 13th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE 2006), October 2006, Benevento, Italy, page 3--8.
[3]
Sabrina Fortsch and Bernhard Westfechtel, DIFFERENCING AND MERGING OF SOFTWARE DIAGRAMS; State of the Art and Challenges. International Conference on software and data technologies ICSOFT 2007.
[4]
Sim, S. E. Holt, R. C. Easterbrook, S. On using a benchmark to evaluate C++ extractors, Proceeding of the 10th international workshop on program comprehension (IWPC'02).
[5]
Steven Kearney, James F. Power. Benchmarking the accuracy of reverse engineering tools for Java programs: a study of eleven UML tools. Technical Report: NUIM-CS-TR-2007-1. June 6, 2007.
[6]
E. Chikofsky and J. I. Cross. Reverse engineering and design recovery: A taxonomy. IEEE software. Jan 1990.
[7]
Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc. A Systematic Study of UML Class Diagram Constituents for their Abstract and Precision Recovery. Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC'04).
[8]
Richard C. Holt, Andy Schürr, Susan Elliott Sim, Andreas Winter: "GXL: A graph-based standard exchange format for reengineering", Science of Computer Programming, volume 60, Issue 2, April 2006, Pages 149--170.
[9]
N. A. Kraft, B. A. Malloy, and J. F. Power, "An Infrastructure to Support Interoperability among Reverse Engineering Tools," Information and Software Technology, 49(3): 292--307, March 2007.
[10]
Daniel L. Moise, Kenny Wong. Issues in Integrating Schemas for Reverse Engineering. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Meta-Models and Schemas for Reverse Engineering (ateM 2003).
[11]
N. A. Kraft, E. L. Lloyd, B. A. Malloy, and P. J. Clarke, "The Implementation of an Extensible System for Comparison and Visualization of Class Ordering Methodologies," Journal of Systems and Software, 79(8): 1092--1109, August 2006.
Index Terms
- Toward automatic artifact matching for tool evaluation
Recommendations
Evaluating ontology extraction tools using a comprehensive evaluation framework
Ontologies are a key component of the Semantic Web; thus, they are widely used in various applications. However, most ontologies are still built manually, a time-consuming activity which requires many resources. Several tools such as ontology editing ...
Reverse engineering: a roadmap
ICSE '00: Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2009 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 19 March 2009
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ACM SE 09
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 502 of 1,023 submissions, 49%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 138Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)1
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in