Top

Software Quality Journal

Published in:

01-03-2011

Graphical versus textual software measurement modelling: an empirical study

Authors: B. Mora, F. García, F. Ruiz, M. Piattini

Published in: Software Quality Journal | Issue 1/2011

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Model-driven Engineering (MDE) has attained great importance in both the Software Engineering industry and the research community, where it is now widely used to provide a suitable approach with which to improve productivity when developing software artefacts. In this scenario, measurement models (software artefacts) have become a fundamental point in improvement of productivity, where MDE and Software Measurement can reap mutual benefits. MDE principles and techniques can be used in software measurement to build more automatic and generic solutions, and to achieve this, it is fundamental to be able to develop software measurement models. To facilitate this task, a domain-specific language named “Software Measurement Modelling Language” (SMML) has been developed. This paper tackles the question of whether the use of SMML can assist in the definition of software measurement models. An empirical study was conducted, with the aim of verifying whether SMML makes it easier to construct measurement models which are more usable and maintainable as regards textual notation. The results show that models which do not use the language are more difficult—in terms of effort, correctness and efficiency—to understand and modify than those represented with SMML. Additional feedback was also obtained, to verify the suitability of the graphical representation of each symbol (element or relationship) of SMML.

previous article Comparison of weighted grey relational analysis for software effort estimation

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

In http://alarcos.inf-cr.uclm.es/ontologies/smo/—The Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a family of knowledge representation languages for authoring ontologies endorsed by the World Wide Web Consortium.

In http://alarcos.esi.uclm.es/smf/.

In http://alarcos.esi.uclm.es/smf/smtool/.

LabVIEW (short for Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench) is a platform and development environment for a visual programming language from National Instruments.

Simulink is an environment for multidomain simulation and Model-Based Design for dynamic and embedded systems. It provides an interactive graphical environment and a customizable set of block libraries that let you design, simulate, implement, and test a variety of time-varying systems, including communications, controls, signal processing, video processing, and image processing.

Ahmad, R. (1999). Visual languages: A new way of programming. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 12(1), 76–81.

Apple. (2010a). Automator, from www.macosxautomation.com/automator. Accessed May 2010.

Apple. (2010b). appleScript, from http://www.macosxautomation.com/applescript/). Accessed May 2010.

Arpaia, P., Buzio, M., Fiscarelli, L., Inglese, V., Commara, G. L., & Walckiers, L. (2009). Measurement-domain specific language for magnetic test specifications at CERN. 2009 IEEE instrumentation and measurement technology conference, CERN/TE 2009-002, 1716–1720.

Basili, V. R., Shull, F., & Lanubile, F. (1999). Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), 456–473.CrossRef

Bézivin, J. (2004). In search of a basic principle for model-driven engineering [Special Issue]. Novatica Journal, 5, 21–24.

Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., & Touzet, D. (2005). Principles, standards and tools for model engineering. 10th IEEE international conference on engineering of complex computer systems (ICECCS’2005), 28–29.

Cook, S. (2004). Domain-specific modeling and model driven architecture. In D. S. Frankel & J. Parodi (Eds.), The MDA journal: Model driven architecture straight from the masters (Chap. 5, pp. 1–10). Tampa, FL: Meghan-Kiffer Press.

Cunniff, N., & Taylor, R. P. (1987). Graphical vs. textual representation: An empirical study of novices’ program comprehension. Empirical studies of programmers: Second workshop, pp. 114–131.

Deursen, A. v., Klint, P., & Visser, J. (2000). Domain-specific languages: An annotated bibliography. SIGPLAN Notices, 35(6), 26–36.CrossRef

Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2005). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Feilkas, M. (2006). How to represent models, languages and transformations? Proceedings of the 6th OOPSLA workshop on domain-specific modeling (DSM’06), pp. 204–213.

Fenton, N., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1997). Software metrics: A rigorous & practical approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Company.

García, F., Bertoa, M. F., Calero, C., Vallecillo, A., Ruíz, F., Piattini, M., et al. (2006). Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement. Information & Software Technology, 48(8), 631–644.CrossRef

García, F., Ruiz, F., Cruz, J., & Piattini, M. (2003). Integrated measurement for the evaluation and improvement of software processes. Proceedings of the 9th European workshop on software process technology (EWSPT’9), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2786, pp. 94–111.

García, F., Serrano, M., Cruz-Lemus, J., Ruiz, F., & Piattini, M. (2007). Managing software process measurement: A metamodel-based approach. Information Sciences, 177, 2570–2586.CrossRef

Genero, M., Moody, D., & Piattini, M. (2005). Assessing the capability of internal metrics as early indicators of maintenance effort through experimentation. Journal of Software Maintenance, 17(3), 225–246.CrossRef

Green, T. R. G., Petre, M., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (1991). Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of superlativism against the match-mismatch conjecture. 4th workshop on empirical studies of programmers, pp. 121–146.

Guerra, E., Lara, J. d., & Díaz, P. (2008). Visual specification of measurements and redesigns for domain specific visual languages. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 19(3), 399–425.CrossRef

Hull, D., Wolstencroft, K., Stevens, R., Goble, C., Pocock, M., Li, P., & Oin, T. (2006). Taverna: A tool for building and running workflows of services. Nucleic Acids Research, 34(Web Server issue) pp. 729–732.

ISO/IEC. (2001). ISO/IEC 9126-1: Software engineering-software product quality—Part 1: Quality model. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Standardization.

Jedlitschka, A., & Ciolkowski, M. (2005). Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering, pp. 95–195.

Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I., & Valduriez, P. (2006). ATL: A QVT-like transformation language. Companion to the 21th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, OOPSLA 2006, pp. 719–720.

Jouault, F., & Bézivin, J. (2006). KM3: A DSL for metamodel specification. Formal methods for open object-based distributed systems, 8th IFIP WG 6.1 international conference, FMOODS 2006, 4037, pp. 171–185.

Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M. (2001). Basics of software engineering experimentation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.MATH

Karsai, G., Krahn, H., Pinkernell, C., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M., & Völkel, S. (2009). Design guidelines for domain specific languages. The 9th OOPSLA workshop on domain-specific modeling, pp. 7–13.

Kelly, S., & Pohjonen, R. (2009). Worst practices for domain-specific modeling. IEEE Software, 26(4), 22–29.CrossRef

Kitchenham, B. A., Pfleeger, S. L., Pickard, L. M., Jones, P. W., Hoaglin, D. C., Emam, K. E., et al. (2002). Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(8), 721–734.CrossRef

Kolovos, D. S., Paige, R. F., Kelly, T., & Polack, F. A. C. (2006). Requirements for domain-specific languages. First ECOOP workshop on domain-specific program development (ECOOP’06).

Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., & Valduriez, P. (2006). Model-based DSL frameworks. OOPSLA Companion 2006, pp. 602–616.

Mernik, M., Heering, J., & Sloane, A. M. (2005). When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(4), 316–344.CrossRef

Moher, T. G., Mak, D. C., Blumenthal, B., & Leventahal, L. M. (1993). Comparing the comprehensibility of textual and graphical programs: The case of petri nets. Palo Alto, pp. 137–161.

Mora, B., García, F., Ruiz, F., & Piattini, M. (2008b). SMML: Software measurement modeling language. The 8th OOPSLA workshop on domain-specific modeling, pp. 52–59.

Mora, B., García, F., Ruiz, F., & Piattini, M. (2009). Model-driven software measurement framework: A case study. The 9th international conference on quality software, QSIC 2009, pp. 239–248.

Mora, B., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Boronat, A., Gómez, A., Carsí, J. Á., & Ramos, I. (2008a). Software measurement by using QVT transformation in an MDA context. 10th International conference on enterprise information systems—ICEIS 2008, 1, pp. 117–124.

Mora, B., Ruiz, F., Garcia, F., & Piattini, M. (2008c). SMML: Software measurement modeling language, Department of Computer Science. University of Castilla—La Mancha, from http://www.uclm.es/dep/tsi/pdf/SMML_Software_Measurement_Modeling_Language.pdf.

Oinn, T., Greenwood, M., Addis, M., Alpdemir, N., Ferris, J., Glover, K., et al. (2006). Taverna: Lessons in creating a workflow environment for the life sciences. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 18(10), 1067–1100.CrossRef

OMG. (2003). OCL 2.0—OMG final adopted specification, Object Management Group.

OMG. (2005a). Query/view/transformation (QVT) Standard Specification.

OMG. (2005b). UML specification: Superstructure version 2.0, Object Management Group, from http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/05-07-04.pdf.

Özgür, T. (2007). Comparison of Microsoft DSL tools and eclipse modeling frameworks for domain-specific modeling in the context of the model driven development. School of Engineering. Ronneby, Sweden, Blekinge Institute of Technology: p. 56.

Pandey, R. K., & Burnett, M. M. (1993). Is it easier to write matrix manipulation programs visually or textually? An empirical study. IEEE symposium on visual languages, pp. 344–351.

Patig, S. (2008). A practical guide to testing the understandability of notations. Fifth Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modelling (APCCM 2008), pp. 49–55.

Pelechano, V., Albert, M., Javier, M., & Carlos, C. (2006). Building tools for model driven development comparing Microsoft DSL tools and eclipse modeling plug-ins. Desarrollo de Software Dirigido por Modelos—DSDM’06.

Shneiderman, B., Mayer, R., McKay, D., & Heller, P. (1977). Experimental investigations of the utility of detailed flowcharts in programming. Communications of the ACM, 20(6), 373–381.CrossRef

Shull, F., Carver, J. C., Vegas, S., & Juzgado, N. J. (2008). The role of replications in empirical software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 13(2), 211–218.CrossRef

Völter, M. (2009). MD* Best practices. Journal of Object Technology, 8(6), 79–102.CrossRef

Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction, International Series in Software Engineering.

Yoder, M., & Black, B. (2006). A study of graphical vs. textual programming for teaching DSP. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

Zhao, Y., Hategan, M., Clifford, B., Foster, I., Laszewski, G. V., Raicu, I., et al. (2007). Swift: Fast, reliable, loosely coupled parallel computation. 2007 IEEE Congress on Services, pp. 199–206.

Title: Graphical versus textual software measurement modelling: an empirical study
Authors: B. Mora
F. García
F. Ruiz
M. Piattini
Publication date: 01-03-2011
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Software Quality Journal / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0963-9314
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1367
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-010-9111-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

In this issue

Guest editor’s introduction to the special section on the 2009 international conference on program comprehension (ICPC 2009)

Contributions of tester experience and a checklist guideline to the identification of categories and choices for software testing

Automatically identifying changes that impact code-to-design traceability during evolution

Empirical studies on programming language stimuli

Comparison of weighted grey relational analysis for software effort estimation

Premium Partner