Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Dina Zayan
dblp:129/8222
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Requirements engineering and software design · 50% Empirical software engineering · 50% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering
controlled experiment |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Effects of using examples on structural model comprehension: a controlled experiment · ICSE 2014 |
Empirical software engineering › developer studies › cognitive processes
model comprehension |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Effects of using examples on structural model comprehension: a controlled experiment · ICSE 2014 |
Requirements engineering and software design
model-driven engineering |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Example-driven modeling: model = abstractions + examples · ICSE 2013 |
Requirements engineering and software design › software modeling
structural modeling |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Example-driven modeling: model = abstractions + examples · ICSE 2013 |
Requirements engineering and software design › model-driven engineering › UML
UML class diagrams |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Effects of using examples on structural model comprehension: a controlled experiment · ICSE 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
controlled experiment · 0.2examples · 0.2abstraction · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Example-driven modeling: on effects of using examples on structural model comprehension, what makes them useful, and how to create them
Dina Zayan, Atrisha Sarkar, Michal Antkiewicz, Rita Suzana Pitangueira Maciel, Krzysztof Czarnecki 0001 |
Softw. Syst. Model. | 1 |
| 2014 | Effects of using examples on structural model comprehension: a controlled experimentabstractWe present a controlled experiment for the empirical evaluation of Example-Driven Modeling (EDM), an approach that systematically uses examples for model comprehension and domain knowledge transfer. We conducted the experiment with 26 graduate and undergraduate students from electrical and computer engineering (ECE), computer science (CS), and software engineering (SE) programs at the University of Waterloo. The experiment involves a domain model, with UML class diagrams representing the domain abstractions and UML object diagrams representing examples of using these abstractions. The goal is to provide empirical evidence of the effects of suitable examples in model comprehension, compared to having model abstractions only, by having the participants perform model comprehension tasks. Our results show that EDM is superior to having model abstractions only, with an improvement of 39% for diagram completeness, 30% for questions completeness, 71% for efficiency, and a reduction of 80% for the number of mistakes. We provide qualitative results showing that participants receiving model abstractions augmented with examples experienced lower perceived difficulty in performing the comprehension tasks, higher perceived confidence in their tasks' solutions, and asked fewer clarifying domain questions, a reduction of 90%. We also present participants' feedback regarding the usefulness of the provided examples, their number and types, as well as, the use of partial examples. Dina Zayan, Michal Antkiewicz, Krzysztof Czarnecki 0001 |
ICSE | 1 |
| 2013 | Example-driven modeling: model = abstractions + examplesabstractWe propose Example-Driven Modeling (EDM), an approach that systematically uses explicit examples for eliciting, modeling, verifying, and validating complex business knowledge. It emphasizes the use of explicit examples together with abstractions, both for presenting information and when exchanging models. We formulate hypotheses as to why modeling should include explicit examples, discuss how to use the examples, and the required tool support. Building upon results from cognitive psychology and software engineering, we challenge mainstream practices in structural modeling and suggest future directions. Kacper Bak, Dina Zayan, Krzysztof Czarnecki 0001, Michal Antkiewicz, Zinovy Diskin, Andrzej Wasowski, Derek Rayside |
ICSE | 2 |