Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction
Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction
Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design
Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design
Semantic-based weaving of scenarios
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development
Communications of the ACM - Two decades of the language-action perspective
Effects of defects in UML models: an experimental investigation
Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering
Model-driven Development of Complex Software: A Research Roadmap
FOSE '07 2007 Future of Software Engineering
Evaluating guidelines for reporting empirical software engineering studies
Empirical Software Engineering
Synthesizing hierarchical state machines from expressive scenario descriptions
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)
Assessing the impact of aspects on model composition effort
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development
A survey on UML-based aspect-oriented design modeling
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Proactive detection of collaboration conflicts
Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering
Enhancing design models with composition properties: a software maintenance study
Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on Aspect-oriented software development
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Design models represent modular realizations of stakeholders' concerns and communicate the design decisions to be implemented by developers. Unfortunately, they often suffer from inconsistency problems. Aspect-oriented modeling (AOM) aims at promoting better modularity. However, there is no empirical knowledge about its impact on the inconsistency detection effort. To address this gap, this work investigates the effects of AOM on: (1) the developers' effort to detect inconsistencies; (2) the inconsistency detection rate; and (3) the interpretation of design models in the presence of inconsistencies. A controlled experiment was conducted with 26 subjects and involved the analysis of 520 models. The results, supported by statistical tests, show that the effort of detecting inconsistencies is 20 percent lower in AO models than in their OO counterparts. On the other hand, the inconsistency detection rate and the number of misinterpretations are 43 and 37 percent higher in AO models than in OO models, respectively.