CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Software Engineering ResearchAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Examination of the software architecture change characterization scheme using three empirical studies

Williams, Byron J., Carver, Jeffrey C.·2014·Empirical Software Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s10664-012-9223-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10664-012-9223-y

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The complexity of architectural changes elevates the cost and effort of implementing them across the software development lifecycle.

    “The complexity elevates the cost and effort of implementing architectural changes across the software development lifecycle [111].”

    From Software Architecture in Practice: Challenges and Opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as [111]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Basili V, Caldiera G, Rombach HD (1994) The Goal Question Metric Paradigm. In: Marciniak JJ (ed) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley, New York, pp 528–532
  2. Batory D (2005) Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Product Lines, Rennes, France · DOI
  3. Belady LA, Lehman MM (1976) A Model of Large Program Development. IBM Syst J 15(1):225–252 · DOI
  4. Bosch J (2000) Design and Use of Software Architectures. Addison Wesley
  5. Briand LC, Labiche Y, O'Sullivan L (2003) Impact analysis and change management of UML models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp 256–265 · DOI
  6. Briand LC, Labiche Y, O’Sullivan L, Sûwka MM (2006) Automated impact analysis of UML models. J Syst Softw 79(3):339–352 · DOI
  7. Brooks F (1975) The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley · DOI
  8. Carver J, Jaccheri L, Morasca S, Shull F (2003) Issues in using students in empirical studies in software engineering education. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Metrics Symposium, pp 239–249 · DOI
  9. Chaumun MA, Kabaili H, Keller RK, Lustman F (2002) A change impact model for changeability assessment in object-oriented software systems. Sci Comput Program 45(2):155–177 · DOI
  10. Chesley OC, Ren X, Ryder BG (2005) Crisp: a debugging tool for Java programs. In, pp 401–410 · DOI
  11. Clements P, Bachmann F, Bass L, Garlan D, Ivers J, Little R, Merson P, Nord R, Stafford J (2010) Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. Addison-Wesley Professional
  12. Cook S, He J, Harrison R (2001) Dynamic and static views of software evolution. Software Maintenance, 2001 Proceedings IEEE International Conference on, pp 592–601 · DOI
  13. Dennis G (2003) TSAFE: Building a Trusted Computing Base for Air Traffic Control Software. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institue of Technology
  14. Eick SG, Graves TL, Karr AF, Marron JS, Mockus A (2001) Does code decay? Assessing the evidence from change management data. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(1):1–12 · DOI
  15. Ferzund J, Ahsan SN, Wotawa F (2009) Software change classification using hunk metrics. In: Software Maintenance, 2009. ICSM 2009. IEEE International Conference on, 20–26 Sept. 2009. pp 471–474. doi: 10.1109/icsm.2009.5306274 · DOI
  16. Fluri B, Gall HC (2006) Classifying Change Types for Qualifying Change Couplings. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Conference on Program Comprehension, Athens, Greece, pp 35–45 · DOI
  17. Giroux O, Robillard MP (2006) Detecting increases in feature coupling using regression tests. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, Portland, Oregon, USA · DOI
  18. Godfrey MW, Tu Q (2000) Evolution in open source software: A case study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp 131–142 · DOI
  19. Graves TL, Mockus A (1998) Inferring change effort from configuration management databases. In: Software Metrics Symposium, 1998. Metrics 1998. Proceedings. Fifth International, pp 267–273
  20. Herraiz I, Robles G, Gonzalez-Barahona JM, Capiluppi A, Ramil JF (2006) Comparison between SLOCs and number of files as size metrics for software evolution analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp 203–210 · DOI
  21. Hochstein L, Lindvall M (2005) Combating architectural degeneration: a survey. Inf Softw Technol 47(10):643–656 · DOI
  22. IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology (1990) IEEE Std 61012-1990
  23. Kang K, Cohen S, Hess J, Nowak W, Peterson S (1990) Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute · DOI
  24. Kim S, Whitehead EJ, Bevan J (2005) Analysis of signature change patterns. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Mining software repositories, St. Louis, Missouri. ACM Press. doi:http://doi.acm.org/ 10.1145/1083142.1083154 · DOI
  25. Kung D, Gao J, Hsia P, Wen F, Toyoshima Y, Chen C (1994) Change impact identification in object oriented software maintenance. In: Proceedings of the International Conference onSoftware Maintenance, Victoria, BC, pp 202–211 · DOI
  26. Lehman MM (1980) Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc IEEE 68(9):1060–1076 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Lehman MM (1996) Feedback, evolution and software technology. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Process Support of Software Product Lines Software Process Workshop, pp 101–103
  28. Lehman MM, Belady L (1985) Program Evolution - Processes of Software Change. Academic, London
  29. Lehman MM, Perry DE, Ramil JF (1998a) Implications of evolution metrics on software maintenance. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, Bethesda, MD, pp 208–217 · DOI
  30. Lehman MM, Perry DE, Ramil JF (1998b) On evidence supporting the FEAST hypothesis and the laws of software evolution. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Software Metrics Symposium, pp 84–88 · DOI
  31. Li PL, Shaw M, Herbsleb J, Ray B, Santhanam P (2004) Empirical evaluation of defect projection models for widely-deployed production software systems. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 29(6):263–272, http://doi.acm.org/ 10.1145/1041685.1029930 · DOI
  32. Lientz B, Swanson B (1980) Software Maintenance Management Addison-Wesley
  33. Lindvall M, Tesoriero R, Costa P (2002) Avoiding architectural degeneration: an evaluation process for software architecture. In: Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE Symposium on Software Metrics, pp 77–86 · DOI
  34. Mohagheghi P, Conradi R (2004) An empirical study of software change: origin, acceptance rate, and functionality vs. quality attributes. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE ‘04), pp 7–16
  35. Nedstam J, Karlsson EA, Host M (2004) The architectural change process. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE ‘04), pp 27–36 · DOI
  36. Nurmuliani N, Zowghi D, Williams SP (2004) Using card sorting technique to classify requirements change. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp 240–248 · DOI
  37. Ostrand TJ, Weyuker EJ, Bell RM (2007) Automating algorithms for the identification of fault-prone files. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on Software testing and analysis, London, United Kingdom · DOI
  38. Parnas DL (1994) Software Aging. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy, pp 279–287 · DOI
  39. Raja U, Barry E (2005) Investigating quality in large-scale Open Source Software. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fifth workshop on Open source software engineering, St. Louis, Missouri · DOI
  40. Ren X, Shah F, Tip F, Ryder BG, Chesley O (2004a) Chianti: a tool for change impact analysis of java programs. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, Vancouver, BC, Canada · DOI
  41. Ren X, Shah F, Tip F, Ryder BG, Chesley O (2004b) Chianti: a tool for change impact analysis of java programs. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications. ACM Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp 432–448 · DOI
  42. Sommerville I (2004) Software Engineering, 7th edn. Addison-Wesley
  43. Van Rysselberghe F, Demeyer S (2004) Mining Version Control Systems for FACs (Frequently Applied Changes). In: 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 48–52 · DOI
  44. Williams B (2006) A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Software Changes to Software Architecture Using Change Classification. Master's Thesis, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS
  45. Williams B (2009) Change Decision Support: Extraction and Analysis of Late Architecture Chagnes Using Change Characterization and Software Metrics. Doctoral Dissertation, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS
  46. Williams B, Carver J (2007) Characterizing Software Architecture Changes: An Initial Study. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Madrid, Spain, pp 410–419 · DOI
  47. Williams B, Carver J (2010) Characterizing Software Architecture Changes: A Systematic Review. Inf Softw Technol 52(1):31–51 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Williams, B. J., & Carver, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Mississippi State University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, Byron J.
ORCID
Venue
Empirical Software Engineering
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-08-08
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
419-464
ISSN
  • 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7616
DOI
10.1007/s10664-012-9223-y
OpenAlex
W2163017178
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
Empirical Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
software maintenance, change impact analysis, change requests, novice programmers, software architecture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review