A Systematic Review on Software Testing Ontologies

Tebes, Guido; Peppino, Denis; Becker, Pablo; Matturro, Gerardo; Solari, Martín; Olsina, Luis

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29238-6_11

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that we just have finished a Systematic Literature Review on Software Testing Ontologies [29]. So as an ongoing work, from this secondary study and other sources such as software testing standards, we are developing a top-domain software testing component that is linked with the FRs y NFRs ontologies, as suggested by the relationships between these conceptual components in Fig.…”

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying an Improving Strategy that embeds Functional and Non-Functional Requirements Concepts

Becker

Tebes

Peppino

et al. 2019

JC&ST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations should set and reach business goals for varied purposes using the suitable strategies. Basically, a strategy specifies the activities, methods and another related resources that should be considered in order to achieve a given goal purpose. Goal purposes and their associated strategies can aim at evaluating, testing, developing, or maintaining some entity. Some concrete evaluation purposes such as to understand or monitor can be achieved by strategies embracing non-functional requirements definition, measurement, evaluation and analysis activities. Other specific evaluation purposes such as to improve or control also imply changing the target entity; therefore, strategies should embrace functional requirements definition activities as well. Moreover, specific development and maintenance purposes always involve functional requirements. In this work, we relate business and information need goals with functional and nonfunctional requirements concepts, which are paramount for well-defined strategies. Therefore, we specify vocabularies for them, and illustrate the applicability of an improving strategy -which embeds these concepts-in the context of a running example. Having well-structured vocabularies serving as common ground for diverse strategies may promote a more effective operationalization of projects dealing with evaluation, testing, development and maintenance goal purposes.Objective: Determine the support level (user errors prevention) for mandatory entries in a given field. Author: Peppino -TebesVersion: 1.0Measurement Procedure: Type: Objective Specification:The expert inspects the screen (or window, or dialog) where is the given field to determine the rating (0, 1 or 2). Where 0 means that the mandatory data field has not any kind of visual indicator w.r.t. its mandatory nature; 1 means that the mandatory data field has some kind of indicator w.r.t. its mandatory nature, but it is not explicitly informed; and 2 means that the mandatory data field has a clear visual indicator of its mandatory nature and it is explicitly informed.

show abstract

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying an Improving Strategy that embeds Functional and Non-Functional Requirements Concepts

Becker

Tebes

Peppino

et al. 2019

JC&ST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this direction, we conducted the SLR study on software testing ontologies (Tebes et al 2019b) in order to establish the suitable top-domain testing ontology to be integrated into the C-INCAMI v.2 conceptual framework. That is, we envision populating the testing conceptual component shown in Figure 9 and linking it with the FRs and NFRs components.…”

Section: Rationale For the Slr Study On Software Testing Ontologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Figure 13, we show an excerpt of the "Data Synthesis" produced for the software testing ontologies study. Then, using the "Data Synthesis" as input, a "Scientific Article" (Tebes et al 2019b) was elaborated by the Expert Communicator and the Domain Expert in the Document/Communicate Results sub-activity. In Tebes et al (2019b), the full analysis is documented, where all research questions are answered and other issues are considered, such as validity threats.…”

Section: To Analyze and Document The Review (A3) For The Software Tesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, using the "Data Synthesis" as input, a "Scientific Article" (Tebes et al 2019b) was elaborated by the Expert Communicator and the Domain Expert in the Document/Communicate Results sub-activity. In Tebes et al (2019b), the full analysis is documented, where all research questions are answered and other issues are considered, such as validity threats. However, due to the page size constraints that a conference paper has, we are currently extending it to a journal format where there is less page limits.…”

Section: To Analyze and Document The Review (A3) For The Software Tesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, we use the same study to illustrate fully the produced main artifacts throughout the SLR process. On the other hand, this work differs from Tebes et al (2019b), whose focus is mainly on the analysis of the retrieved software testing ontologies but not on the process perspectives as we do in the next sections.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Specifying the Process Model for Systematic Reviews: An Augmented Proposal

Olsina¹,

Becker²,

Peppino³

et al. 2019

JSERD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology intended to obtain evidence from scientific articles stored in digital libraries. SLRs can be performed on primary and secondary studies. Although there are guidelines to the SLR process in Software Engineering, the SLR process is not fully and rigorously specified yet. Moreover, it can often be observed a lack of a clear separation of concerns between what to do (process) and how to do it (methods). Objective: To specify the SLR process in a more detailed and rigorous manner by considering different process modeling perspectives, such as functional, behavioral, organizational and informational. The main objective in this work is specifying the SLR activities rather than their methods. Method: The SPEM (Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel) language is used to model the SLR process from different perspectives. In addition, we illustrate aspects of the proposed process by using a recently conducted SLR on software testing ontologies. Results: Our SLR process model specifications favor a clear identification of what task/activities should be performed, in which order, by whom, and which are the consumed and produced artifacts as well as their inner structures. Also, we explicitly specify activities related to the SLR pilot test, analyzing the gains. Conclusion: The proposed SLR process considers with higher rigor the principles and benefits of process modeling backing SLRs to be more systematic, repeatable and auditable for researchers and practitioners. In fact, the rigor provided by process modeling, where several perspectives are combined, but can also be independently detached, provides a greater richness of expressiveness in sequences and decision flows, while representing different levels of granularity in the work definitions, such as activity, sub-activity and task.

show abstract

A survey on runtime testing of dynamically adaptable and distributed systems

Lahami

Krichen

2021

Software Qual J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Systematic Review on Software Testing Ontologies

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

Applying an Improving Strategy that embeds Functional and Non-Functional Requirements Concepts

Applying an Improving Strategy that embeds Functional and Non-Functional Requirements Concepts

Specifying the Process Model for Systematic Reviews: An Augmented Proposal

A survey on runtime testing of dynamically adaptable and distributed systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About