Since ontology-driven software development (ODSD) is an integration of ontology technologies and model-driven software development (MDSD), it is necessary to identify and analyse technologies applied in MDSD. We define basic concepts, such as model-driven engineering, metamodelling, model transformation and technological space, and describe the state-of-the-art implementations of these concepts.

Model-Driven Software Development

https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00767175/document

FAMILIAR: A domain-specific language for large scale management of feature models

Context: In this study we report on a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) for Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs), based on an automatic search including primary studies from journals, conferences, and workshops during the period from 2006 until 2012.Objective: The main objective of the described work was to perform an SMS on DSLs to better understand the DSL research field, identify research trends, and any possible open issues. The set of research questions was inspired by a DSL survey paper published in 2005.Method: We conducted a SMS over 5 stages: defining research questions, conducting the search, screening, classifying, and data extraction. Our SMS included 1153 candidate primary studies from the ISI Web of Science and ACM Digital Library, 390 primary studies were classified after screening.Results: This SMS discusses two main research questions: research space and trends/demographics of the literature within the field of DSLs. Both research questions are further subdivided into several research sub-questions. The results from the first research question clearly show that the DSL community focuses more on the development of new techniques/methods rather than investigating the integrations of DSLs with other software engineering processes or measuring the effectiveness of DSL approaches. Furthermore, there is a clear lack of evaluation research. Amongst different DSL development phases more attention is needed in regard to domain analysis, validation, and maintenance. The second research question revealed that the number of publications remains stable, and has not increased over the years. Top cited papers and venues are mentioned, as well as identifying the more active institutions carrying DSL research.Conclusion: The statistical findings regarding research questions paint an interesting picture about the mainstreams of the DSL community, as well as open issues where researchers can improve their research in their future work.

Domain-Specific Languages

Context Secondary studies are vulnerable to threats to validity. Although, mitigating these threats is crucial for the credibility of these studies, we currently lack a systematic approach to identify, categorize and mitigate threats to validity for secondary studies. Objective In this paper, we review the corpus of secondary studies, with the aim to identify: (a) the trend of reporting threats to validity, (b) the most common threats to validity and corresponding mitigation actions, and (c) possible categories in which threats to validity can be classified. Method To achieve this goal we employ the tertiary study research method that is used for synthesizing knowledge from existing secondary studies. In particular, we collected data from more than 100 studies, published until December 2016 in top quality software engineering venues (both journals and conference). Results Our results suggest that in recent years, secondary studies are more likely to report their threats to validity. However, the presentation of such threats is rather ad hoc, e.g., the same threat may be presented with a different name, or under a different category. To alleviate this problem, we propose a classification schema for reporting threats to validity and possible mitigation actions. Both the classification of threats and the associated mitigation actions have been validated by an empirical study, i.e., Delphi rounds with experts. Conclusion Based on the proposed schema, we provide a checklist, which authors of secondary studies can use for identifying and categorizing threats to validity and corresponding mitigation actions, while readers of secondary studies can use the checklist for assessing the validity of the reported results.

/pdf/identifying-categorizing-and-mitigating-threats-to-validity-vqpi818d2w.pdf

Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies

UML4IoT-A UML-based approach to exploit IoT in cyber-physical manufacturing systems

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are often argued to have a simpler notation than general-purpose languages (GPLs), since the notation is adapted to the specific problem domain. Consequently, the impact of domain relevance on the creation of the problem representation is believed to improve programmers' efficiency and accuracy when using DSLs compared with using similar solutions like application libraries in GPLs. Most of the common beliefs have been based upon qualitative conclusions drawn by developers. Rather than implementing the same problem in a DSL and in a GPL and comparing the efficiency and accuracy of each approach, developers often compare the implementation of a new program in a DSL to their previous experiences implementing similar programs in GPLs. Such a conclusion may or may not be valid. This paper takes a more skeptical approach to acceptance of those beliefs. By reporting on a family of three empirical studies comparing DSLs and GPLs in different domains. The results of the studies showed that when using a DSL, developers are more accurate and more efficient in program comprehension than when using a GPL. These results validate some of the long- held beliefs of the DSL community that until now were only supported by anecdotal evidence.

Program comprehension of domain-specific and general-purpose languages: comparison using a family of experiments

Declarative specifications for the development of multi-agent systems

A Systematic Mapping Study driven by the margin of error

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) allow developers to write code at a higher level of abstraction compared with general-purpose languages (GPLs) Developers often use DSLs to reduce the complexity of GPLs Our previous study found that developers performed program comprehension tasks more accurately and efficiently with DSLs than with corresponding APIs in GPLs This study replicates our previous study to validate and extend the results when developers use IDEs to perform program comprehension tasks We performed a dependent replication of a family of experiments We made two specific changes to the original study: (1) participants used IDEs to perform the program comprehension tasks, to address a threat to validity in the original experiment and (2) each participant performed program comprehension tasks on either DSLs or GPLs, not both as in the original experiment The results of the replication are consistent with and expanded the results of the original study Developers are significantly more effective and efficient in tool-based program comprehension when using a DSL than when using a corresponding API in a GPL The results indicate that, where a DSL is available, developers will perform program comprehension better using the DSL than when using the corresponding API in a GPL

Program comprehension of domain-specific and general-purpose languages: replication of a family of experiments using integrated development environments

Tomaž Kosar

Papers

Domain-Specific Languages

Program comprehension of domain-specific and general-purpose languages: comparison using a family of experiments

Declarative specifications for the development of multi-agent systems

A Systematic Mapping Study driven by the margin of error

Program comprehension of domain-specific and general-purpose languages: replication of a family of experiments using integrated development environments