Graph-based traceability: a comprehensive approach

Schwärz, H.; Ebert, Jürgen; Winter, Andreas

doi:10.1007/s10270-009-0141-4

Cited by 44 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our approach uses a similar idea but is applied on executable architecture model. Schwarz et al (2010) describe a graph-based traceability approach. Generation and maintenance of traces are handled by model transformations.…”

Section: Generating and Validating Tracesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generation and validation of traces between requirements and architecture based on formal trace semantics

Göknil

Kurtev²,

Berg

2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article in press as: Goknil, A., et al., Generation and validation of traces between requirements and architecture based on formal trace semantics. J. Syst. Software (2013) The size and complexity of software systems make integration of the new/modified requirements to the software system costly and time consuming. The impact of requirements changes on other requirements, design elements and source code should be traced to determine parts of the software to be changed. Considerable research has been devoted to relating requirements and design artifacts with source code. Less attention has been paid to relating requirements (R) with architecture (A) by using well-defined semantics of traces. Traces between R&A might be manually assigned. This is time-consuming, and error prone. Traces might be incomplete and invalid. In this paper, we present an approach for automatic trace generation and validation of traces between requirements (R) and architecture (A). Requirements relations and architecture verification techniques are used. A trace metamodel is defined with commonly used trace types between R&A. We use the semantics of traces and requirements relations for generating and validating traces with a tool support. The tool provides the following: (1) generation and validation of traces by using requirements relations and/or verification of architecture, (2) generation and validation of requirements relations by using traces. The tool is based on model transformation in ATL and termrewriting logic in Maude.

show abstract

Section: Generating and Validating Tracesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generation and validation of traces between requirements and architecture based on formal trace semantics

Göknil

Kurtev²,

Berg

2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, very little is known about how practitioners use traceability and what they demand from it [17]. We agree with Winkler and von Pilgrim that it is an important research task to study traceability practices in order to propose and develop traceability support that suits practical needs [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Despite of all these efforts, little is still known about the practical use of traceability in development projects [17]. In order to provide better project-specific support for requirements traceability, we need to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) What are practical applications of requirements traceability?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey on Usage Scenarios for Requirements Traceability in Practice

Bouillon

Mäder

Philippow

2013

Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. [Context and motivation]Requirements traceability is known as an important part of development projects. Studies showed that traceability is applied in practice, but insufficient tool-and method-support hinders its practical use. [Question/problem] We conducted a survey to understand which traceability usage scenarios are most relevant for practitioners. Gaining this information is a required step for providing better traceability support to practitioners. [Principal ideas/results] We identified a list of 29 regularly cited usage scenarios and asked practitioners to assess the frequency of use for each in a typical development project. Our analysis is restricted to those 56 participants that were actively using traceability in order to ensure comparable results. Subjects held various roles in the development and reported about diverse projects.[Contribution] This study provides not only an initial catalog of usage scenarios and their relevance, but also provides insights on practitioner's traceability practices. In result, we found all scenarios to be used by practitioners. Participants use traceability especially for: finding origin and rationale of requirements, documenting a requirement's history, and tracking requirement or task implementation state. Furthermore, we highlight topics for ongoing evaluation and better method and tool support in the area of requirements traceability.

show abstract

“…Pinheiro and Goguen 1996;Ramesh 1997;Ramesh and Jarke 2001;Egyed 2001;Vanhooff et al 2007;Cleland-Huang et al 2009; J. I. Maletic and Collard 2009;Schwarz et al 2010]. Accordingly, the concept of a traceability graph is defined as follows for this thesis:…”

Section: Source Artifact Target Artifactmentioning

confidence: 99%