Advertisement

Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering

Report on the 12th Workshop QAOOSE at ECOOP 2008
  • Giovanni Falcone
  • Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc
  • Christian F. J. Lange
  • Zoltán Porkoláb
  • Houari Sahraoui
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5475)

Abstract

The QAOOSE 2008 workshop has been held at ECOOP 2008 conference in Paphos, Cyprus on July 8th, 2008. This was the twelfth of the series of QAOOSE workshops intended to bring researchers and practitioners both from academia and industry together. The workshop provided a forum to discuss the current state of the art and the practice in the area of quantitative approaches in the fields related to object-orientation. This report includes a summary of the technical presentations and the subsequent discussions. Six papers has been accepted by the workshop organizers. The presentations were followed by vivid discussions.

Keywords

Software Engineering Quality Attribute Model Transformation Quantitative Approach Software Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hayhurst, K.J., Veerhusen, D.S.: A Practical Approach to Modified Condition/Decision Coverage. In: 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Daytona Beach, Florida, USA, October 14-18, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 1B2/1-1B2/10 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Szűgyi, Z., Porkoláb, Z.: Necessary test cases for Decision Coverage and Modified Condition / Decision Coverage. In: Proceedings of 6th CSCS Conference, July 2-5 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van den Brink, H., van der Leek, R., Visser, J.: Quality Assesment for Embedded SQL. In: Proc. of Seventh IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM), pp. 163–170 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Porkoláb, Z., Sillye, Á.: Towards a multiparadigm complexity measure. In: 9th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE 2005), pp. 134–142 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baudry, B., Traon, Y.L., Sunyié, G.: Testability analysis of a uml class diagram. In: 8th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2002), Ottawa, Canada, June 2002, p. 54 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chidamber, R., Kemerer, C.F.: Towards a metrics suite for object oriented design. In: OOPSLA, pp. 197–211 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertoa, M.F., Troya, J.M., Vallecillo, A.: Measuring the usability of software components. Journal of Systems and Software 79(3), 427–439 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moraga, M., Calero, C., Piattini, M.: Comparing different quality models for portals. Online Information Review 30(5), 555–568 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neil, M., Krause, P., Fenton, N.E.: Software Quality Prediction Using Bayesian Networks. In: Software Engineering with Computational Intelligence, ch. 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., Macleod, G.J., Merrit, M.J.: Characteristics of Software Quality. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lange, C.F.J., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Supporting task-oriented modeling using interactive UML views. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 18(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., Bunse, C., Kamsties, E., Laitenberger, O., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Paech, B., Wüst, J., Zettel, J.: Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML. Addison Wesley, Reading (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Falcone
    • 1
  • Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc
    • 2
  • Christian F. J. Lange
    • 3
  • Zoltán Porkoláb
    • 4
  • Houari Sahraoui
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für SoftwaretechnikUniversität MannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Operations ResearchUniversité MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Software Engineering and Technology GroupEindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Programming Languages and CompilersEötvös Loránd UniversityHungary

Personalised recommendations