A design recording framework to facilitate knowledge sharing in collaborative software engineering

This paper describes an environment that allows a development team to share knowledge about software artefacts by recording decisions and rationales as well as supporting the team in formulating and maintaining design constraints. It explores the use of multi-dimensional design spaces for capturing various issues arising during development and presenting this meta-information using a network of views. It describes a framework to underlie the collaborative environment and shows the supporting architecture and its implementation. It addresses how the artefacts and their meta-information are captured in a non-invasive way and shows how an artefact repository is embedded to store and manage the artefacts

Re-use of an ontology for modelling urban energy systems

The use of ontologies for the interoperability of software models is widespread, with many applications also in the energy domain. By formulating a shared data structure and a definition of concepts and their properties, a language is created that can be used between modellers and - formalised in an ontology - between model components. When modelling energy systems, connections between different infrastructures are critical, e.g. the interaction between the gas and electricity markets or the need for various infrastructures including power, heat, water and transport in cities. While a commonly shared ontology of energy systems would be highly desirable, the fact is that different existing models or applications already use dedicated ontologies, and have been demonstrated to work well using them. To benefit from linking data sources and connecting models developed with different ontologies, a translation between concepts can be made. In this paper a model of an urban energy system built upon one ontology is initialised using energy transformation technologies defined in another ontology, thus illustrating how this common perspective might benefit researchers in the energy domain. ©2010 IEEE

Subjects, Models, Languages, Transformations

Discussions about model-driven approaches tend to be hampered by terminological confusion. This is at least partially caused by a lack of formal precision in defining the basic concepts, including that of "model" and "thing being modelled" - which we call subject in this paper. We propose a minimal criterion that a model should fulfill: essentially, it should come equipped with a clear and unambiguous membership test; in other words, a notion of which subjects it models. We then go on to discuss a certain class of models of models that we call languages, which apart from defining their own membership test also determine membership of their members. Finally, we introduce transformations on each of these layers: a subject transformation is essentially a pair of subjects, a model transformation is both a pair of models and a model of pairs (namely, subject transformations), and a language transformation is both a pair of languages and a language of model transformations. We argue that our framework has the benefits of formal precision (there can be no doubt about whether something satifies our criteria for being a model, a language or a transformation) and minimality (it is hard to imagine a case of modelling or transformation not having the characterstics that we propose)