A Systematic Literature Review on CMS-based Web Applications
Feliu Trias, Valeria de Castro, Marcos López-Sanz and Esperanza Marcos
Kybele Research Group, Rey Juan Carlos University, Tulipán S/N, 28933, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
Keywords: Web Engineering, Model Driven Engineering, Systematic Literature Review, Content Management System.
Abstract: CMS-based Web applications have increased their presence in the market because of the advantages they
offer with regard to information management, thus offering a new landscape in Web application
development. In this paper we analyze the current state-of-the-art on the existing approaches for the
development of CMS-based Web applications. To do it, we have followed a Systematic Literature Review
(SLR). As a result of this SLR we found four approaches in the literature focused on this issue. In this paper
we focus our attention in studying the insights of each approach by following four criteria (Web
Engineering views, MDA abstraction levels, modeling language and level of automation) and we discuss
about the interest shown by the Web Engineering community about the CMS-based Web application
development.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the last years, organizations have experienced the
necessity for using powerful management tools to
maintain their large Web applications and manage
the vast amount of information generated (Boiko,
2001) (McKeever, 2003). Some problems that these
companies frequently face during the management
of their Web applications include bottlenecks for the
webmaster role, inconsistencies in the webpage
look-and-feel, complex and confusing navigation or
access to unauthorized content. To address all these
problems one of the most popular adopted solutions
has been the use of Content Management Systems
(CMS) as platforms for the development of Web
applications (Vidgen et al., 2001). The CMS-based
Web Applications allow users to collect, manage
and publish content online in a comprehensive
manner. Moreover, such systems help companies to
stay organized so that their Web applications can
grow and evolve quickly while maintaining high
quality of execution (Boiko, 2001).
CMS-based Web applications offer advantages
that differentiate them from traditional Web
applications. Some of these advantages are (Vidgen
et al., 2001): 1) Dynamic creation of content, content
is created and added dynamically by non-technical
users of the Web, without requiring the intervention
of the webmaster; 2) Separation between content
and design, the page graphical design is stored in a
template and the content is stored in a database; 3)
Different levels of access authority, many CMS-
based Web applications permit the definition of
different levels of access rights and 4) Functionality
extension, achieved through module addition that
reduces development costs.
Due to all of this, a vast number of large
organizations have decided to base their
sophisticated Web applications on these platforms
(Vidgen et al., 2001). Besides, in the last decade the
number of available CMS platforms in the market
has growth very rapidly meeting different domains,
such as blogs, e-commerce or e-learning (Shreves,
2011).
Seeing the success experimented by CMS-based
Web applications we posed the following research
questions: 1) Is there any approach in the
literature for the development of CMS-based
Web applications? In particular, we are interested
in knowing which approaches exist and in analyzing
their insights. To perform this analysis we study the
Web views (Deshpande and Hansen, 2001) covered
by each approach, the Model Driven Architecture
(MDA) (Mellor et al., 2002) abstraction levels they
consider, the modeling language they use and their
level of automation. On the other hand, the other
research question is 2) Which is the interest of the
Web Engineering community in researching
about CMS-based Web applications? Concretely,
we want to know which research groups or
132
Trias F., De Castro V., López-Sanz M. and Marcos E..
A Systematic Literature Review on CMS-based Web Applications.
DOI: 10.5220/0004433401320140
In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT-EA-2013), pages 132-140
ISBN: 978-989-8565-68-6
Copyright
c
2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
organizations are leading the research in this area
and which forums publish studies focused on this
issue.
To answer these questions, we follow a
Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process
(Kitchenham et al., 2009). In this paper we present
the results extracted from this SLR. To perform this
SLR we follow a rigorous and reproducible method
for searching, collecting, analyzing and evaluating
the available relevant information to the subject of
the investigation. For that aim, we base our SLR on
the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham et al.
(Kitchenham et al., 2009) and Biolchini et al.
(Biolchini et al., 2005).
In this paper we present the primary studies of
our research that allow us to answer our two
research questions. Therefore, we present an
analysis of each approach focused on the
development of CMS-based Web applications by
applying four criteria (Web Engineering views
covered, MDA levels considered, modeling
language used and level of automation). Besides,
from the author information, the year of publication
of the primary studies and the forum where they
were published we can discuss the interest shown by
the Web Engineering community in CMS-based
Web applications.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section
2 presents the primary studies as a result of our SLR;
Section 3 analyzes the insights of each approach
found from the primary studies, Section 4 presents
the discussion based on the two research questions
posed and Section 5 presents the conclusions of our
review.
2 SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE
REVIEW RESULTS
The first task of our SLR was to define the objective
of our research by defining the two research
questions posed in the introduction. In the second
task we defined the Research Query (RQ) including
the keywords related to the main goal of our
research. In this case, our RQ was composed of the
following terms classified in a) and b):
a) "Web Content Management" OR "Content
Management System" OR CMS.
b) "Web Engineering" OR "Web application".
RQ= (a) AND (b)
After the definition of the RQ, we selected the
digital libraries to launch the RQ and to obtain the
initial set of studies. The seven selected digital
libraries are: 1) ACM Digital Library [ACM], 2)
IEEEXplore [IEEEX], 3) ISI Web of Knowledge
[ISI], 4) Science Direct [SD], 5) SpringerLink [SL]
and 6) Scopus [SCP].
In the first launch of RQ, we found 1,484 studies
by using the widest scope allowed for each digital
library. To select the studies which provide valuable
evidence for our research, we filtered the 1,484
studies by applying inclusion criteria. Therefore, we
considered only the studies containing the terms
defined in a) at least in the title, abstract or keywords
as well as containing the terms in b) in any part of
the text. Also, we considered those studies whose
abstract let us to conclude that the main purpose of
the study was a methodological approach focused on
the development of CMS-based Web applications.
Surprisingly, we obtained 74 relevant studies out
of the 1,484 total studies. We determined that most
of the studies belonged to other research areas
different from Software Engineering or Web
Engineering. In the case of Scopus, the 45% of the
studies found was about other research areas such as
mathematics or physics. Afterwards, we removed
the duplicated studies.
Finally, to accurate the SLR we applied the
exclusion criteria to obtain the primary studies of
our research. Therefore, we read entirely each study
and we rejected those which only used CMS-based
Web applications for supporting or implementing a
concrete case study (not proposing a methodological
approach) as well as those which were focused on
the management of content not designed to be
available through the Web. As a result, we obtained
the list of 15 primary studies.
Table 1: Primary Studies list.
ID PrimaryStudy Publication
APPR1
(Souer et al. 2011) iiWAS
(Luinenburg et al. 2008) MDWE
(Souer, Luinenburg, et al.
2008)
iiWAS
(Souer, Honders, et al. 2008) JDIM
(Souer, Honders, et al. 2007) ICDIM
(Weerd et al. 2006) IJSPIP
(Souer, Weerd, et al. 2007) IJWET
APPR2
(Souer et al. 2009) ICWE
(Souer & Kupers 2009) MDWE
APPR3
(Saraiva & Silva 2010) Inforum
(Saraiva & Silva 2009b) ICSEA
(Saraiva & Silva 2009a) ICSEA
(Saraiva & Silva 2008) SEAA
APPR4
(Vlaanderen et al. 2009) ICEIS
(Vlaanderen et al. 2008) ICEIS
ASystematicLiteratureReviewonCMS-basedWebApplications
133
Table 1 contains the complete list of the primary
studies extracted. This table groups the primary
studies in approaches according into their
commonalities in terms of authors and proposed
ideas. Accordingly, we define four different
approaches identified with an ID (APPRNum), as it
is shown in the first column. It is worth noting that
APPR1 and APPR2, in spite of belonging to the
same research group, have been considered as
different approaches because of their different
nature.
3 RESULT ANALYSIS
In this section we analyze the insights of each
approach found in this SLR defining four different
criteria which allow us to compare them and extract
the main conclusions. The set of criteria is explained
below.
The first criterion is to analyze which views
proposed by Web Engineering are covered by each
approach: 1) content view, is the view used to
represent the business and data objects; 2)
navigation view, is the view which expresses the
composition of the interface in terms of container
and the navigation map of the Web application; 3)
process view, is the view that defines how the
application reacts to the events raised by the user’s
navigation and 4) presentation view, is the view for
specifying the layout and the look & feel of the
interface. Moreover, to complete this analysis we
have considered two views belonging to the
traditional Software Engineering: the requirements
view which is the view that reflects the functionality
that Web applications offer to users and the
implementation view which expresses Web
applications in terms of artifacts implemented by
code.
The second criterion is related to the abstraction
levels proposed by MDA: Computation Independent
Model (CIM), Platform Independent Model (PIM)
and Platform Specific Model (PSM). We are
interested in knowing the MDA abstraction level of
the models used in each approach.
The third criterion is related to the modeling
language used to define the models. We consider
interesting to know if the approach is supported by a
standard modeling language such as UML, or
otherwise the approach proposes a Domain Specific
Language (DSL) (Van Deursen and Klint, 2002) for
the definition of their models.
The fourth criterion is about the level of
automation of the approach. It is of interest to check
if the approach implements automatic model-to-
model (M2M) transformations and model-to-text
(M2T) transformations (Mellor et al., 2002). If the
approach defines both transformations (M2M and
M2T) we consider it with a high level of automation.
If the approach defines some of the transformations
(M2M or M2T) we consider it with a medium level
of automation. Finally, if the approach does not
consider any type of transformation we consider it
with a low level of automation.
3.1 Web Engineering Method (WEM)
This approach is identified as APPR1 in Table 1
WEM is a method for the development of CMS-
based Web applications. It covers from a correct
requirement definition to the implementation. This
method is defined following Situational Method
Engineering (SME) approach (Ralyté et al., 2003)
that consists in taking parts of other existing
engineering methods and customizing a new one for
a certain domain.
In this case, WEM is composed of parts from the
Unified Process (UP) (Jacobson et al., 2000) and
UML-based Web Engineering (UWE) (Kraus et al.
2007) methods. Even UWE is a model-driven
method, WEM is not considered as such. WEM is
composed of six tasks (Acquisition, Orientation,
Definition, Design, Realization and
Implementation).
Considering the first criterion we realized that
the requirements view is addressed within the
Acquisition, Orientation and part of the Definition
task by means of Use-case models and Feature lists.
The presentation and navigation views are addressed
only by the Definition task. Both are modeled by the
Application model took from UWE. The process
view is addressed by the Design task which
determines how the requirements are realized and a
suitable architecture is created. Finally, the
implementation view of the CMS-based Web
application is addressed during the Realization and
Implementation tasks.
The former is the responsible for creating the
CMS-based Web application and integrating the
graphical user interface design. The latter, is when
the CMS-based Web application is generally
deployed straight to production. On the other hand,
the unique view not addressed is the content view.
Figure 1 presents the tasks of WEM and the Web
engineering views that they address.
Some of the models which WEM proposes are:
Domain model, Use-case model and Application
model. According to the second criteria we can say
ICSOFT2013-8thInternationalJointConferenceonSoftwareTechnologies
134
Figure 1: Matching APPR1 with Web Engineering views.
Figure 2: Matching APPR2 with Web Engineering views.
that the Domain model is the unique model that can
be considered at CIM level. The rest of the models
are mainly at PIM level because they are not related
to any specific platform. On the other hand, WEM
does not propose the use of any PSM model.
Regarding the third criterion, we saw that the
modeling language proposed by WEM is UML,
since it is the modeling language used by UP and
UWE.
Finally, according to the fourth criterion, we
realized that WEM has a low level of automation
because it does not consider transformations M2M
or M2T to implement the Web application.
3.2 Model-driven Method
based on a Webform Diagram
The ID of this approach is APPR2 in Table 1. It is a
model-driven method that allows the automatic
configuration of a CMS-based Web application from
a Business process model.
This method starts with the definition of a Web
form diagram (henceforth, WebForm Diagram) that
is implemented in XML. Afterwards, this model is
transformed automatically to another XML model
that contains the concepts available within the CMS
domain. Finally, from this last XML model is
automatically generated the specific XML that
configures a CMS-based Web application.
Regarding to the first criterion we can expose
that this approach only addresses the navigation and
process views. The navigation view is addressed
because the WebForm Diagram considers concepts
such as, forms, steps, form elements and pages,
otherwise the process view is addressed by concepts,
such as action and handler. The implementation
view considers the automatic generation of the XML
model that configures the CMS-based Web
application.
Figure 2 shows the correspondence
between the APPR2 and the Web Engineering
views.
Regarding to the second criterion we consider
the WebForm Diagram as a PIM model since it
captures navigation concepts which are not related to
any platform. On the other hand, this approach does
not consider models at CIM and PIM level.
The WebForm Diagram intends to be
understandable and intuitive enough to be used by
non-technical users such as business users. Thus,
considering the third criterion, APPR2 proposes a
specific modeling language in form of DSL. To
define the elements of the DSL they also followed
the SME approach. They took into consideration
other Web application modeling languages such as
WebML (Ceri et al., 2000), OOWS (Valverde et al.,
2007) and OOHDM (Schwabe and Rossi, 1995).
According to the fourth criterion, APPR2 has a
high level of automation because it defines M2M
and M2T transformations that generate the
configuration of the CMS-based Web application
from the WebForm Diagram. The M2M
transformation is implemented by using Java.
Otherwise, the M2T transformation is implemented
in EXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformation
(XSLT) (Anon 2012).
3.3 Model-driven Method
based on a Webform Diagram
This approach is identified as APPR3 in Table 1. It is
a model-driven method for the development of
CMS-based Web applications. This method is
composed of three tasks: the first task is the
definition of the Web-site Templates model and the
ASystematicLiteratureReviewonCMS-basedWebApplications
135
Figure 3: Matching APPR3 with Web Engineering view.
Toolkits model by using a modeling graphical
language. The former reflects the structure, the
content, the navigation and look and feel of the Web
application. The latter allows the addition of task-
oriented extensions and complex user interface
elements to the elements of the Web-site Templates
model. The second task is focused on the automatic
definition of these models into a textual modeling
language. Finally, the last task is to implement
automatically the CMS-based Web application from
these models.
Regarding the first criterion we can state that this
method addresses the requirements, content,
navigation and presentation views with the
definition of Web-site Templates model.
On the other hand, with the definition of the
Toolkits model, it addresses the process and
navigation views. Finally, the implementation view
is addressed by the automatic generation of code.
Considering the second criterion we can say that
the Web-site Templates model and Toolkits model
are considered at PIM level. Any CIM or PSM
models are considered in this approach.
According to the third criterion, this method
proposes two modeling languages to define their
models: the CMS Modeling Language (CMS-ML)
and the CMS Intermediate Language (CMS-IL).
CMS-ML is used in the first task in order to
define graphically the models. It is a graphical
modeling language that allows the definition of Web
applications in a simple and efficient way. This
language is also defined by using a DSL.
Although, APPR3 does not consider the SME
approach to define their models, it is worth noting
that the CMS-ML language is based on already
existing languages such as WebML or UML.
On the other hand, the CMS-IL language is used
on the second task. It is a textual language that
provides a mechanism, independent to any particular
CMS implementation, which can be used by
technical stakeholders to address low-level
computation aspects, and deploy a Web application
model in any CMS platform.
According to the fourth criterion, this approach
has a high level of automation because it defines
M2M transformations that generate automatically
the CMS-IL models from the CMS-ML models and
M2T transformations that implement automatically
the CMS-based Web application from the CMS-IL
models. Even they propose the M2M and M2T
transformations do not mention the language to
implement these transformations. Figure 3 presents
the matching between APPR3 and the Web
Engineering views.
3.4 Adaptation of OOWS within the
CMS Domain
This approach is presented in Table 1 with the ID
APPR4. It is focused on the adaptation of the model-
driven Web Engineering method OOWS (Valverde
et al. 2007) to the development of CMS-based Web
applications. OOWS’s has been extended in order to
address the modeling of these Web applications by
including new tasks. This method has followed the
SME approach to define these new tasks.
OOWS process is presented in Figure 4. For
space restrictions, we will not explain the entire
process; we will just focus on the required tasks for
the development of CMS-based Web applications
presented in red within Figure 4 which are: the
Define legacy classes task, the Identify stub services
task, the Session information specification task, the
Dynamic user information task and the Detail
navigational map task.
The Define legacy classes task, the Identify stub
services task and the Session information
specification task are introduced to complete the
existing Object model with the necessary
information for modeling CMS-based Web
applications. Otherwise, the Dynamic user
information task is introduced to complete the
existing User model and the Detail navigational map
task has been extended to cope with the CMS
features.
Regarding the first criterion we can say that
OOWS method addresses all the views proposed by
the Web Engineering, as we can see in
Figure 4. It is
interesting to note that the models which have been
adapted to the CMS domain address the content and
ICSOFT2013-8thInternationalJointConferenceonSoftwareTechnologies
136
Figure 4: Matching APPR4 with Web Engineering views.
navigation views.
According to the second criterion, we can say
that OOWS consider models at PIM and PSM levels.
Concretely, the Object model and the User model are
PIM models. Otherwise, we have not identified any
CIM model.
Considering the third criterion, we can state that
this approach does not define any specific modeling
language to model CMS-based Web applications.
They propose the use of standard modeling
languages such as UML or BPMN for the definition
of the models.
According to the fourth criterion, OOWS has a
high level of the automation since it defines M2M
transformations and the automatic generation of the
code by M2T transformations. M2M transformations
such as the transformation between the Functional
model and the Navigational model are implemented
by XSLT. As for the implementation of M2T they
use Xpand language (OpenArchitectureWare, 2009).
4 DISCUSSION
After presenting and analyzing the approaches found
in the literature we discuss and conclude in this
section answering the two research questions leading
this research.
Table 2: Summary of the SLR results.
Views MDA Language M2M M2T
APPR1
R, PR,
N, P, I
CIM
PIM
UML No No
APPR2 PR, N PIM
WebForm
diagram
Yes Yes
APPR3
R, C,
PR, N,
P, I
PIM
CMS-ML
CMS-IL
Yes Yes
APPR4
R, C,
PR, N,
P, I
PIM
PSM
UML
BPMN
Yes Yes
Table 2 summarizes the results of the SLR. As for the
column views we have used the initial of each Web
Engineering view: (R)equirements, (C)ontent,
(PR)ocess, (N)avigation, (P)resentation and
(I)mplementation.
Is there any approach in the literature for the
development of CMS-based Web applications?
With our SLR we found four approaches in the
literature. In the following, we discuss the results
regarding the four criteria defined.
As for the Web Engineering views we can say
that all the approaches address at least one of these
views. According to Table 2, the two most addressed
views are navigation and process views and the least
addressed one is content view. There are two
approaches taking into account all the views: APPR3
and APPR4. Otherwise, APPR2 is the approach
considering less views, only navigation and process
views.
Regarding the use of models we say that all the
approaches use models as important artifacts for
their development process, but not all of them follow
MDA principles (use of models + automatic
transformations). For instance, APPR1 (WEM) is
not considered as a MDA-based method, even being
based on UWE and defining modeling tasks,
because it does not consider automatic M2M or
M2T transformations. Otherwise, APPR2, APPR3
and APPR4 are considered as MDA-based
approaches.
As for the MDA abstraction level of the models
and according to Table 2, we can say that most of
the approaches consider models at PIM level. Just
APPR1 bet for the use of models at CIM level and
APPR4 consider models at PSM level. It is
interesting to say that most of them try to generate
automatically code from PIM models instead of
PSM models. Only APPR4 consider PSM models to
define M2T transformations.
Considering the modeling languages we can say
that most of them use generic languages which are
not specific to the CMS domain. Thereby, two of the
approaches consider standard languages such as
UML. As for new modeling languages proposed by
the approaches we can consider three: the WebForm
proposed by APPR2, and CMS-ML and CMS-IL
ASystematicLiteratureReviewonCMS-basedWebApplications
137
proposed by APPR3. Except from CMS-IL, the
other two are graphical languages. The three
languages allow the modeling of navigation and
process aspects, but WebForm’s concepts are more
generic (useful for modeling any kind of Web
application) and not as focused on the CMS domain.
Otherwise, CMS-ML and CMS-IL are more specific
within the CMS domain. We consider that it would
be interesting to provide a thorough CMS modeling
language.
According to their level of automation, all the
methods considered as MDA-based approaches take
into account M2M and M2T transformations to
automate their development processes.
It is worth noting that none of the four
approaches have been defined from scratch. All of
them are based on existing Web Engineering
methods. Concretely, three of the approaches follow
the SME approach to define their process.
Which is the interest of the Web Engineering
community in researching about CMS-based
Web applications?
We consider that the Web Engineering
community has not dedicated much effort in the
research about the CMS-based Web applications. It
has surprised us considering the many advantages
that they offer to companies and considering (how it
is demonstrated by the APPR4) that the existing
model-driven Web Engineering methods do not
address thoroughly the development of this kind of
Web applications. Just OOWS has shown interest in
the adaptation of its process in the CMS domain.
Even so, we can find some active research
groups such as the group in the Utrecht University
and the group in the Technical University of
Valencia.
Regarding the forums where the primary studies
were published, we conclude that they are recent
forums (from 2006 to 2011) but they are not high-
level such as CORE-A or JCR levels, but they are
mainly CORE-C.
Finally, we would like to comment that all the
approaches found are methods for the traditional
top-down development and we have not found any
approach centered in the migration or
modernization. Hence, we consider an interesting
gap to cover in future works.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The interest shown by organizations in using CMS-
based Web applications in the last years has aroused
the necessity of analyzing the state-of-the-art on
existing approaches for the development of this kind
of Web applications. To do it, we have followed a
SLR. As a result of this SLR we found four
approaches. In this paper we studied the insights of
each approach by following four criteria (Web
Engineering views, MDA abstraction levels,
modeling language and level of automation) and we
discussed the interest shown by the Web
Engineering community about the CMS-based Web
application development.
After performing this SLR we conclude that the
number of approaches focused in this issue is scarce
despite the features of CMS-based Web applications
and the advantages that offer to organizations. Most
of these approaches are MDA-based. We state it is
because of the excellent results obtained by MDA
during the last years.
As for Web Engineering views criterion we
conclude that the cornerstone of the development of
this Web applications is on modeling navigation and
process views.
In regard to the abstraction level criterion we say
that these approaches define mainly models at PIM
level and generate the code from this level.
Regarding the modeling language criterion, we
consider that, even there are some specific modeling
languages focused in the CMS domain, it would be
interesting to provide another thorough CMS
modeling language.
Finally, considering the level of automation
criterion we can say that all MDA-based approaches
take into account M2M and M2T transformations to
automate their development processes.
The two most active research groups in the issue
are the group in the Utrecht University and the group
in the Technical University of Valencia. Otherwise,
the primary studies found are published in recent
forums (from 2006 to 2011) but they are not high-
level, mainly CORE-C.
Finally, we conclude that all the approaches
found are methods for the traditional top-down
development. Hence, we consider the definition of a
method for migrating CMS-based Web applications
as an interesting gap to cover.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been partially funded by the Project
MASAI (TIN-2011-22617) from the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation.
ICSOFT2013-8thInternationalJointConferenceonSoftwareTechnologies
138
REFERENCE
Anon, 2012. W3C. eXtensible Stylesheet Language
Transformation (XSLT) v2.0. Available at:
www.w3.org/Style/XSL/ (Accessed April 30, 2012).
Biolchini, J. et al., 2005. Systematic Review in Software
Engineering. Engineering, (May).
Boiko, B., 2001. Understanding Content Management.
Bulletin of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 28(1), pp.8–13.
Ceri, S., Fraternali, P. & Bongio, A., 2000. Web Modeling
Language (WebML): A modeling language for
designing web sites. Computer Networks, 33, pp.137–
157.
Deshpande, Y. & Hansen, S., 2001. Web engineering:
creating a discipline among disciplines. IEEE
Multimedia, 8(2), pp.82–87.
Van Deursen, A. & Klint, P., 2002. Domain-Specific
Language Design Requires Feature Descriptions.
Journal of Computing and Information Technology,
10(1), pp.1–17.
Jacobson, I., Booch, G. & Rumbaugh, J., 2000. The
Unified Software Development Process,
Kitchenham, B. et al., 2009. Systematic literature reviews
in software engineering – A systematic literature
review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1),
pp.7–15.
Kraus, A., Knapp, A. & Koch, N., 2007. Model-Driven
Generation of Web Applications in UWE. Model-
Driven Web Engineering, 261, pp.23–38.
Luinenburg, L. et al., 2008. Designing Web Content
Management Systems Using the Method Association
Approach. In 4th International Workshop on Model-
Driven Web Engineering. pp. 106–120.
McKeever, S., 2003. Understanding Web content
management systems: evolution, lifecycle and market.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(9),
pp.686–692.
Mellor, S. J. et al., 2002. Model-Driven Architecture. In
J.-M. B. and Z. B. (Eds.), ed. Advances in Object-
Oriented Information Systems. Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg 2002, pp. 233–239.
OpenArchitectureWare, 2009. Xpand. Available at:
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/m2t/?project=xpand.
Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R. & Rolland, C., 2003. Towards a
generic model for situational method engineering. In J.
Eder & M. Missikoff, eds. CAiSe 2003. Heidelberg:
Springer, p. 1029.
Saraiva, J. D. S. & Silva, A.R. Da, 2009a. CMS-based
Web-Application Development Using Model-Driven
Languages. In 4th International Conference on
Software Engineering Advances. Porto, Portugal:
IEEE Computer Society, pp. 21–26.
Saraiva, J. D. S. & Silva, A. R. Da, 2009b. Development
of CMS-Based Web-Applications Using a Model-
Driven Approach. In 4th International Conference on
Software Engineering Advances. Ieee, pp. 500–505.
Saraiva, J. D. S. & Silva, A. R. Da, 2008. The
WebComfort Framework: An Extensible Platform for
the Development of Web Applications. In 34th
Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and
Advanced Applications, ed. 34th Euromicro
Conference Software Engineering and Advanced
Applications. pp. 19–26.
Saraiva, J. D. S. & Silva, A. R. Da, 2010. Web
Application Modeling with the CMS-ML Language.
In INForum. pp. 461–472.
Schwabe, D. & Rossi, G., 1995. The Object Oriented
Hypermedia Design Model. Communications of
ACM, 38, pp.45–46.
Shreves, R., 2011. Open Source CMS Market Share W. &
S. White paper, ed., Bali, Indonesia.
Souer, J., Honders, P., et al., 2008. A Framework for Web
Content Management System Operations and
Maintenance. Journal Of Digital Information
Management, 6(4).
Souer, J., Honders, P., et al., 2007. Defining operations
and maintenance in web engineering: A framework for
CMS-based Web applications. In 2nd International
Conference on Digital Information Management.
IEEE, pp. 430–435.
Souer, J., Luinenburg, L., et al., 2008. Engineering a
Design Method for Web Content Management
Implementations. In 10th International Conference on
Information Integration and Web-based Applications
& Services. pp. 351–358.
Souer, J. et al., 2011. Engineering Web Information
Systems: A Content Management System-based
Approach. In 13th International Conference on
Information Integration and Web-based Applications
and Services. pp. 5–7.
Souer, J. et al., 2009. Model-Driven Web Engineering for
the Automated Configuration of Web Content
Management Systems. In Springer-Verlag, ed. ICWE
2009. Heidelberg, pp. 124–135.
Souer, J., Weerd, I. Van De, et al., 2007. Situational
Requirements Engineering for the Development of
Content Management System-based Web
Applications. International Journal of Web
Engineering and Technology, 3(4), pp.420–440.
Souer, J. & Kupers, T., 2009. Towards a Pragmatic Model
Driven Engineering Approach for the Development of
CMS-based Web Applications. In 5th Model Driven
Web Engineering Workshop. pp. 31–45.
Valverde, F. et al., 2007. A MDA-based Environment for
Web Applications Development: From Conceptual
Models to Code. In 6th International Workshop on
Web-Oriented Software Technologies.
Vidgen, R., Goodwin, S. & Barnes, S., 2001. Web Content
Management. In 14th Bled Electronic Commerce
Conference. Slovenia.
Vlaanderen, K., Valverde, F. & Pastor, O., 2008.
Improvement of a Web Engineering Method Applying
Situational Method Engineering. In 9th International
Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. pp.
147–154.
Vlaanderen, K., Valverde, F. & Pastor, O., 2009. Model-
Driven Web Engineering in the CMS Domain: A
Preliminary Research Applying SME. In 10th
International Conference on Enterprise Information
ASystematicLiteratureReviewonCMS-basedWebApplications
139
Systems. Heidelberg, pp. 226–237.
Weerd, I. Van De et al., 2006. A Situational
Implementation Method for Web-based Content
Management System-applications: Method
Engineering and Validation in Practice. Software
Process: Improvement and Practice, 11(5), pp.521–
538.
ICSOFT2013-8thInternationalJointConferenceonSoftwareTechnologies
140
