[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/1566445.1566466acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesacm-seConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Toward automatic artifact matching for tool evaluation

Published: 19 March 2009 Publication History

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

  1. Toward automatic artifact matching for tool evaluation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ACMSE '09: Proceedings of the 47th annual ACM Southeast Conference
      March 2009
      430 pages
      ISBN:9781605584218
      DOI:10.1145/1566445
      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

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. class matching model
      2. reverse engineering
      3. tool evaluation

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      ACM SE 09
      ACM SE 09: ACM Southeast Regional Conference
      March 19 - 21, 2009
      South Carolina, Clemson

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 502 of 1,023 submissions, 49%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 138
        Total 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

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media