Hi Jannik,
you should definitely talk with Mircea who is planing to create a FAMIX Corpus. He wanted to create something more complex than a bunch of mse files on a server. He was trying to identify useful metadata to add to the files to. 

Anyway, I like the idea and yes from the point of view having a mse files repo I think the only mandatory meta-data are: name and version of the extractor used to create the mse and the version of Moose that can load the file. Other simple meta-data could be: name and version of the extracted system, language of the system, and number of classes and methods (just to have an idea of the system size).

Cheers,
Fabrizio



2012/7/21 jannik.laval <jannik.laval@gmail.com>
Hi guys,

Each time we need to do case studies in Moose, we have to select the software application, in a certain version and probably without all the source code needed. This results on evaluations that are probably not reproducible.

I think that we need to unify our efforts and share the mse files of our models. With that, it will be not necessary to generate a FAMIX model each time we need one.

For now, I begun to generate the model from the Qualitas Corpus 'e' (http://qualitascorpus.com/). There are 486 multiple versions of multiple Java systems. The mse files are really big (more than 650Mo for Eclipse_SDK3.7). I tried to load the biggest one in Moose, and it loads ! I just needed to attribute 2Gb of memory in the info.plist file of Moose 4.6.

I propose to put the files on a server. For all the tar.bz2 files, I need 3.65Gb.
Now, we lack ok at least two pieces of information : (i) the version of verveineJ used for the extraction. For now, VerveineJ has no version (I took the latest one). (ii) the version(s) of Moose that can load the file. I tried one mse file with Moose4.6.

We also need a server that can accept all the files.
Any suggestion ?

Jannik
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev