Fechar
Metadados

@Article{SantosSanPovFreMar:2019:CoFoMe,
               author = "Santos, Luciana Brasil Rebelo dos and Santiago J{\'u}nior, 
                         Valdivino Alexandre and Povoa, Lucas Venezian and Freitas, Albino 
                         Vieira and Mario, Cleyton de Castro",
          affiliation = "Instituto Federal de Educa{\c{c}}{\~a}o, Ci{\^e}ncia e 
                         Tecnologia de S{\~a}o Paulo and {Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas 
                         Espaciais (INPE)} and Instituto Federal de Educa{\c{c}}{\~a}o, 
                         Ci{\^e}ncia e Tecnologia de S{\~a}o Paulo and Instituto Federal 
                         de Educa{\c{c}}{\~a}o, Ci{\^e}ncia e Tecnologia de S{\~a}o 
                         Paulo and Instituto Federal de Educa{\c{c}}{\~a}o, Ci{\^e}ncia 
                         e Tecnologia de S{\~a}o Paulo",
                title = "Software inspections: Comparing a formal method based with a 
                         classical reading methodology",
              journal = "International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology",
                 year = "2019",
               volume = "59",
               number = "4",
                pages = "296--317",
             keywords = "software inspection, SOLIMVA 3.0, formal methods, object-oriented 
                         reading techniques, quasi-experiment.",
             abstract = "In this paper, we present a rigorous comparison of two inspection 
                         techniques: our formal method-based approach, SOLIMVA 3.0, with a 
                         set of Object-Oriented Reading Techniques (OORTs). We evaluated 
                         efficiency (required time to analyse a scenario) and effectiveness 
                         (ability to find defects within UML diagrams). Results show that 
                         the classical OORT methodology is more efficient than SOLIMVA. 
                         However, we found a strong positive correlation between the 
                         required time by using OORT and SOLIMVA. For effectiveness, in 
                         general, both methodologies presented the same performance. 
                         However, SOLIMVA detected more inconsistency (incorrectness and 
                         extra information), ambiguity, and partial incompleteness defects 
                         while OORT identified more total incompleteness. Our overall 
                         conclusion is that a classical reading methodology (OORT) and a 
                         formal-based one (SOLIMVA) can be adopted in a complementary way 
                         within a software inspection process. While OORT is less costly to 
                         apply, SOLIMVA can be used to address some specific types of 
                         defects.",
                  doi = "10.1504/IJCAT.2019.099198",
                  url = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJCAT.2019.099198",
                 issn = "0952-8091",
             language = "en",
           targetfile = "10.1504@IJCAT.2019.099198.pdf",
        urlaccessdate = "04 dez. 2020"
}


Fechar