Taxonomies in software engineering: A Systematic mapping study and a revised taxonomy development method

Context: Software Engineering (SE) is an evolving discipline with new subareas being continuously developed and added. To structure and better understand the SE body of knowledge, taxonomies have been proposed in all SE knowledge areas. Objective: The objective of this paper is to characterize the s...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Information and software technology Ročník 85; s. 43 - 59
Hlavní autori: Usman, Muhammad, Britto, Ricardo, Börstler, Jürgen, Mendes, Emilia
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: Elsevier B.V 01.05.2017
Predmet:
Classification
Software engineering
Systematic mapping study
Taxonomy
Taxonomy
Classification
Systematic mapping study
Software engineering
ISSN:0950-5849, 1873-6025, 1873-6025
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Context: Software Engineering (SE) is an evolving discipline with new subareas being continuously developed and added. To structure and better understand the SE body of knowledge, taxonomies have been proposed in all SE knowledge areas. Objective: The objective of this paper is to characterize the state-of-the-art research on SE taxonomies. Method: A systematic mapping study was conducted, based on 270 primary studies. Results: An increasing number of SE taxonomies have been published since 2000 in a broad range of venues, including the top SE journals and conferences. The majority of taxonomies can be grouped into the following SWEBOK knowledge areas: construction (19.55%), design (19.55%), requirements (15.50%) and maintenance (11.81%). Illustration (45.76%) is the most frequently used approach for taxonomy validation. Hierarchy (53.14%) and faceted analysis (39.48%) are the most frequently used classification structures. Most taxonomies rely on qualitative procedures to classify subject matter instances, but in most cases (86.53%) these procedures are not described in sufficient detail. The majority of the taxonomies (97%) target unique subject matters and many taxonomy-papers are cited frequently. Most SE taxonomies are designed in an ad-hoc way. To address this issue, we have revised an existing method for developing taxonomies in a more systematic way. Conclusion: There is a strong interest in taxonomies in SE, but few taxonomies are extended or revised. Taxonomy design decisions regarding the used classification structures, procedures and descriptive bases are usually not well described and motivated.
ISSN:0950-5849
1873-6025
1873-6025
DOI:10.1016/j.infsof.2017.01.006