Lifecycle models for research data are often abstract and simple. This comes at the danger of oversimplifying the complex concepts of research data management. The analysis of 90 different lifecycle models lead to two approaches to assess the quality of these models. While terminological issues make direct comparisons of models hard, an empirical evaluation seems possible.
@cite_10 , @cite_1 and @cite_7 are alike to @cite_8 in the approach to review existing models and deriving an own lifecycle model based on a gap analysis. None of the three publications offer generic and empirical evaluation criteria or a metamodel for the existing models. Their lifecycle model is designed to supersede the existing approaches for a specific context.
@cite_1 @cite_10 @cite_7 @cite_8
2786674049 2165636119 2122778642 2484703597
In this paper, we present the results of long-term research conducted in order to study the contribution made by software models based on the Unified Modeling Language (UML) to the comprehensibility of Java source-code deprived of comments. We have conducted 12 controlled experiments in different experimental contexts and on different sites with participants with different levels of expertise (i.e., Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD students and software practitioners from Italy and Spain). A total of 333 observations were obtained from these experiments. The UML models in our experiments were those produced in the analysis and design phases. The models produced in the analysis phase were created with the objective of abstracting the environment in which the software will work (i.e., the problem domain), while those produced in the design phase were created with the goal of abstracting implementation aspects of the software (i.e., the solution application domain). Source-code comprehensibility was assessed with regard to correctness of understanding, time taken to accomplish the comprehension tasks, and efficiency as regards accomplishing those tasks. In order to study the global effect of UML models on source-code comprehensibility, we aggregated results from the individual experiments using a meta-analysis. We made every effort to account for the heterogeneity of our experiments when aggregating the results obtained from them. The overall results suggest that the use of UML models affects the comprehensibility of source-code, when it is deprived of comments. Indeed, models produced in the analysis phase might reduce source-code comprehensibility, while increasing the time taken to complete comprehension tasks. That is, browsing source code and this kind of models together negatively impacts on the time taken to complete comprehension tasks without having a positive effect on the comprehensibility of source code. One plausible justification for this is that the UML models produced in the analysis phase focus on the problem domain. That is, models produced in the analysis phase say nothing about source code and there should be no expectation that they would, in any way, be beneficial to comprehensibility. On the other hand, UML models produced in the design phase improve source-code comprehensibility. One possible justification for this result is that models produced in the design phase are more focused on implementation details. Therefore, although the participants had more material to read and browse, this additional effort was paid back in the form of an improved comprehension of source code. In this work, we address the problem of joint modeling of text and citations in the topic modeling framework. We present two different models called the Pairwise-Link-LDA and the Link-PLSA-LDA models. The Pairwise-Link-LDA model combines the ideas of LDA [4] and Mixed Membership Block Stochastic Models [1] and allows modeling arbitrary link structure. However, the model is computationally expensive, since it involves modeling the presence or absence of a citation (link) between every pair of documents. The second model solves this problem by assuming that the link structure is a bipartite graph. As the name indicates, Link-PLSA-LDA model combines the LDA and PLSA models into a single graphical model. Our experiments on a subset of Citeseer data show that both these models are able to predict unseen data better than the baseline model of Erosheva and Lafferty [8], by capturing the notion of topical similarity between the contents of the cited and citing documents. Our experiments on two different data sets on the link prediction task show that the Link-PLSA-LDA model performs the best on the citation prediction task, while also remaining highly scalable. In addition, we also present some interesting visualizations generated by each of the models. When we write or prepare to write a research paper, we always have appropriate references in mind. However, there are most likely references we have missed and should have been read and cited. As such a good citation recommendation system would not only improve our paper but, overall, the efficiency and quality of literature search. Usually, a citation's context contains explicit words explaining the citation. Using this, we propose a method that "translates" research papers into references. By considering the citations and their contexts from existing papers as parallel data written in two different "languages", we adopt the translation model to create a relationship between these two "vocabularies". Experiments on both CiteSeer and CiteULike dataset show that our approach outperforms other baseline methods and increase the precision, recall and f-measure by at least 5 to 10 , respectively. In addition, our approach runs much faster in the both training and recommending stage, which proves the effectiveness and the scalability of our work. Many organizations maintain textual process descriptions alongside graphical process models. The purpose is to make process information accessible to various stakeholders, including those who are not familiar with reading and interpreting the complex execution logic of process models. Despite this merit, there is a clear risk that model and text become misaligned when changes are not applied to both descriptions consistently. For organizations with hundreds of different processes, the effort required to identify and clear up such conflicts is considerable. To support organizations in keeping their process descriptions consistent, we present an approach to automatically identify inconsistencies between a process model and a corresponding textual description. Our approach detects cases where the two process representations describe activities in different orders and detect process model activities not contained in the textual description. A quantitative evaluation with 53 real-life model-text pairs demonstrates that our approach accurately identifies inconsistencies between model and text. HighlightsWe propose an approach to detect conflicts between textual and model-based process descriptions.The approach is fully automatic based on tailored natural language processing techniques.Quantitative evaluation demonstrates the applicability of the approach on real-life data.