Towards a Hybrid Approach to Measure Similarity Between UML Models

L. Gonçales, Kleinner Farias, Vinícius Bischoff
{"title":"Towards a Hybrid Approach to Measure Similarity Between UML Models","authors":"L. Gonçales, Kleinner Farias, Vinícius Bischoff","doi":"10.1145/3330204.3330226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several approaches to measure similarity between UML models have been proposed in recent years. However, they usually fall short of what was expected in terms of precision and sensitivity. Consequently, software developers end up using imprecise, similarity-measuring approaches to figure out how similar design models of fast-changing information systems are. This article proposes UMLSim, which is a hybrid approach to measure similarity between UML models. It brings an innovative approach by using multiple criteria to quantify how UML models are similar, including semantic, syntactic, structural, and design criteria. A case study was conducted to compare the UMLSim with five state-of-the-art approaches through six evaluation scenarios, in which the similarity between realistic UML models was computed. Our results, supported by empirical evidence, show that, on average, the UML-Sim presented high values for precision (0.93), recall (0.63) and f-measure (0.67) metrics, excelling the state-of-the-art approaches. The empirical knowledge and insights that are produced may serve as a starting point for future works. The results are encouraging and show the potential for using UMLSim in real-world settings.","PeriodicalId":348938,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the XV Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the XV Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3330204.3330226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Several approaches to measure similarity between UML models have been proposed in recent years. However, they usually fall short of what was expected in terms of precision and sensitivity. Consequently, software developers end up using imprecise, similarity-measuring approaches to figure out how similar design models of fast-changing information systems are. This article proposes UMLSim, which is a hybrid approach to measure similarity between UML models. It brings an innovative approach by using multiple criteria to quantify how UML models are similar, including semantic, syntactic, structural, and design criteria. A case study was conducted to compare the UMLSim with five state-of-the-art approaches through six evaluation scenarios, in which the similarity between realistic UML models was computed. Our results, supported by empirical evidence, show that, on average, the UML-Sim presented high values for precision (0.93), recall (0.63) and f-measure (0.67) metrics, excelling the state-of-the-art approaches. The empirical knowledge and insights that are produced may serve as a starting point for future works. The results are encouraging and show the potential for using UMLSim in real-world settings.
一种度量UML模型之间相似性的混合方法
近年来,人们提出了几种度量UML模型之间相似性的方法。然而,它们通常在精度和灵敏度方面达不到预期。因此,软件开发人员最终使用不精确的相似性测量方法来计算快速变化的信息系统的设计模型有多相似。本文提出了UMLSim,它是一种度量UML模型之间相似性的混合方法。它通过使用多个标准来量化UML模型的相似性,包括语义、语法、结构和设计标准,带来了一种创新的方法。一个案例研究通过六个评估场景将UMLSim与五个最先进的方法进行比较,其中计算了实际UML模型之间的相似性。我们的结果,由经验证据支持,表明,平均而言,UML-Sim具有较高的精度值(0.93),召回率(0.63)和f-measure(0.67)指标,优于最先进的方法。所产生的经验知识和见解可以作为未来工作的起点。结果令人鼓舞,并显示了在现实环境中使用UMLSim的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信