A model-driven traceability framework for software product lines

International audienceSoftware product line (SPL) engineering is a recent approach to software development where a set of software products are derived for a well defined target application domain, from a common set of core assets using analogous means of production (for instance, through Model Driven Engineering). Therefore, such family of products are built from reuse, instead of developed individually from scratch. SPL promise to lower the costs of development, increase the quality of software, give clients more flexibility and reduce time to market. These benefits come with a set of new problems and turn some older problems possibly more complex. One of these problems is traceability management. In the Europe an AMPLE project we are creating a common traceability framework across the various activities of the SPL development. We identified four orthogonal traceability dimensions in SPL development, one of which is an extension of what is often considered as "traceability of variability". This constitutes one of the two contributions of this paper. The second contribution is the specification of a metamodel for a repository of traceability links in the context of SPL and the implementation of a respective traceability framework. This framework enables fundamental traceability management operations, such as trace import and export, modification, query and visualization. The power of our framework is highlighted with an example scenari

Model-Driven Engineering in the Large: Refactoring Techniques for Models and Model Transformation Systems

Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) is a software engineering paradigm that aims to increase the productivity of developers by raising the abstraction level of software development. It envisions the use of models as key artifacts during design, implementation and deployment. From the recent arrival of MDE in large-scale industrial software development – a trend we refer to as MDE in the large –, a set of challenges emerges: First, models are now developed at distributed locations, by teams of teams. In such highly collaborative settings, the presence of large monolithic models gives rise to certain issues, such as their proneness to editing conflicts. Second, in large-scale system development, models are created using various domain-specific modeling languages. Combining these models in a disciplined manner calls for adequate modularization mechanisms. Third, the development of models is handled systematically by expressing the involved operations using model transformation rules. Such rules are often created by cloning, a practice related to performance and maintainability issues. In this thesis, we contribute three refactoring techniques, each aiming to tackle one of these challenges. First, we propose a technique to split a large monolithic model into a set of sub-models. The aim of this technique is to enable a separation of concerns within models, promoting a concern-based collaboration style: Collaborators operate on the submodels relevant for their task at hand. Second, we suggest a technique to encapsulate model components by introducing modular interfaces in a set of related models. The goal of this technique is to establish modularity in these models. Third, we introduce a refactoring to merge a set of model transformation rules exhibiting a high degree of similarity. The aim of this technique is to improve maintainability and performance by eliminating the drawbacks associated with cloning. The refactoring creates variability-based rules, a novel type of rule allowing to capture variability by using annotations. The refactoring techniques contributed in this work help to reduce the manual effort during the refactoring of models and transformation rules to a large extent. As indicated in a series of realistic case studies, the output produced by the techniques is comparable or, in the case of transformation rules, partly even preferable to the result of manual refactoring, yielding a promising outlook on the applicability in real-world settings

Designing precise and flexible graphical modelling languages for software development

Model-driven approaches to software development involve building computerized models of software and the environment in which it is intended to operate. This thesis offers a selection of the author’s work over the last three decades that addresses the design of precise and flexible graphical modelling languages for use in model-driven software development. The primary contributions of this work are: • Syntropy: the first published object-oriented analysis and design (OOAD) method to fully integrate formal and graphical modelling techniques. • The creation of the Object Constraint Language (OCL) and its integration into the Unified Modeling Language (UML) specification. • The identification of requirements and mechanisms for increasing the flexibility of the UML specification. • The design and implementation of tools for implementing graphical Domain Specific Languages (DSLs). The starting point was the author’s experience with formal specification techniques contrasted with the lack of precision of published object-oriented analysis and design methods. This led to a desire to fully integrate these two topics – formal specification and object-orientation - into a coherent discipline. The Syntropy approach, created in 1994 by this author and John Daniels, was the first published complete attempt to do this. Much of the author’s subsequent published work concerns the Unified Modeling Language (UML). UML represented a welcome unification of earlier OOAD approaches, but suffered badly from inflexibility and lack of precision. A significant part of the work included in this thesis addresses the drawbacks of the UML and proposes improvements to the precision of its definition, including through the invention of Object Constraint Language (OCL) and its incorporation into the UML specification, and the consideration of UML as source material for the definition of Domain Specific Languages (DSLs). Several of the author’s published works in this thesis concern mechanisms for the creation of DSLs, both within a UML framework and separately

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-016-9350-6The virtue of quality is not itself a subject; it depends on a subject. In the software engineering field, quality means good software products that meet customer expectations, constraints, and requirements. Despite the numerous approaches, methods, descriptive models, and tools, that have been developed, a level of consensus has been reached by software practitioners. However, in the model-driven engineering (MDE) field, which has emerged from software engineering paradigms, quality continues to be a great challenge since the subject is not fully defined. The use of models alone is not enough to manage all of the quality issues at the modeling language level. In this work, we present the current state and some relevant considerations regarding quality in MDE, by identifying current categories in quality conception and by highlighting quality issues in real applications of the model-driven initiatives. We identified 16 categories in the definition of quality in MDE. From this identification, by applying an adaptive sampling approach, we discovered the five most influential authors for the works that propose definitions of quality. These include (in order): the OMG standards (e.g., MDA, UML, MOF, OCL, SysML), the ISO standards for software quality models (e.g., 9126 and 25,000), Krogstie, Lindland, and Moody. We also discovered families of works about quality, i.e., works that belong to the same author or topic. Seventy-three works were found with evidence of the mismatch between the academic/research field of quality evaluation of modeling languages and actual MDE practice in industry. We demonstrate that this field does not currently solve quality issues reported in industrial scenarios. The evidence of the mismatch was grouped in eight categories, four for academic/research evidence and four for industrial reports. These categories were detected based on the scope proposed in each one of the academic/research works and from the questions and issues raised by real practitioners. We then proposed a scenario to illustrate quality issues in a real information system project in which multiple modeling languages were used. For the evaluation of the quality of this MDE scenario, we chose one of the most cited and influential quality frameworks; it was detected from the information obtained in the identification of the categories about quality definition for MDE. We demonstrated that the selected framework falls short in addressing the quality issues. Finally, based on the findings, we derive eight challenges for quality evaluation in MDE projects that current quality initiatives do not address sufficiently.F.G, would like to thank COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) for funding this work through the Colciencias Grant call 512-2010. This work has been supported by the Gene-ralitat Valenciana Project IDEO (PROMETEOII/2014/039), the European Commission FP7 Project CaaS (611351), and ERDF structural funds.Giraldo-Velásquez, FD.; España Cubillo, S.; Pastor López, O.; Giraldo, WJ. (2016). Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering. Software Quality Journal. 1-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-016-9350-6S166(1985). Iso information processing—documentation symbols and conventions for data, program and system flowcharts, program network charts and system resources charts. ISO 5807:1985(E) (pp. 1–25).(2011). Iso/iec/ieee systems and software engineering – architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011(E) (Revision of ISO/IEC 42010:2007 and IEEE Std 1471-2000) (pp. 1–46).Abran, A., Moore, J.W., Bourque, P., Dupuis, R., & Tripp, L.L. (2013). Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) version 3 public review. IEEE. ISO Technical Report ISO/IEC TR 19759.Agner, L.T.W., Soares, I.W., Stadzisz, P.C., & Simão, J.M. (2013). A brazilian survey on {UML} and model-driven practices for embedded software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(4), 997–1005. {SI} : Software Engineering in Brazil: Retrospective and Prospective Views.Amstel, M.F.V. (2010). The right tool for the right job: assessing model transformation quality. pages 69–74. Affiliation: Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, Netherlands. Cited By (since 1996):1.Aranda, J., Damian, D., & Borici, A. (2012). Transition to model-driven engineering: what is revolutionary, what remains the same?. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on model driven engineering languages and systems, MODELS’12 (pp. 692–708). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Arendt, T., & Taentzer, G. (2013). A tool environment for quality assurance based on the eclipse modeling framework. Automated Software Engineering, 20(2), 141–184.Atkinson, C., Bunse, C., & Wüst, J. (2003). Driving component-based software development through quality modelling, volume 2693. Cited By (since 1996):3.Baker, P., Loh, S., & Weil, F. (2005). Model-driven engineering in a large industrial context—motorola case study. In Briand, L., & Williams, C. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 3713 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 476–491). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Barišić, A., Amaral, V., Goulão, M., & Barroca, B. (2011). Quality in use of domain-specific languages: a case study. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN workshop on evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools, PLATEAU ’11 (pp. 65–72). New York: ACM.Becker, J., Bergener, P., Breuker, D., & Rackers, M. (2010). Evaluating the expressiveness of domain specific modeling languages using the bunge-wand-weber ontology. In 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) (pp. 1–10).Bertrand Portier, L.A. (2009). Model driven development misperceptions and challenges.Bézivin, J., & Kurtev, I. (2005). Model-based technology integration with the technical space concept. In Proceedings of the Metainformatics Symposium: Springer.Brambilla, M. (2016). How mature is of model-driven engineering as an engineering discipline @ONLINE.Brambilla, M., & Fraternali, P. (2014). Large-scale model-driven engineering of web user interaction: The webml and webratio experience. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 71 – 87. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Brown, A. (2009). Simple and practical model driven architecture (mda) @ONLINE.Bruel, J.-M., Combemale, B., Ober, I., & Raynal, H. (2015). Mde in practice for computational science. Procedia Computer Science, 51, 660–669.Budgen, D., Burn, A.J., Brereton, O.P., Kitchenham, B.A., & Pretorius, R. (2011). Empirical evidence about the uml: a systematic literature review. Software: Practice and Experience, 41(4), 363–392.Burden, H., Heldal, R., & Whittle, J. (2014). Comparing and contrasting model-driven engineering at three large companies. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM ’14 (pp. 14:1–14:10). New York: ACM.Cabot, J. Has mda been abandoned (by the omg)?Cabot, J. (2009). Modeling will be commonplace in three years time @ONLINE.Cachero, C., Poels, G., Calero, C., & Marhuenda, Y. (2007). Towards a Quality-Aware Engineering Process for the Development of Web Applications. Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/462, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.Challenger, M., Kardas, G., & Tekinerdogan, B. (2015). A systematic approach to evaluating domain-specific modeling language environments for multi-agent systems. Software Quality Journal, 1–41.Chaudron, M.V., Heijstek, W., & Nugroho, A. (2012). How effective is uml modeling? Software & Systems Modeling, 11(4), 571–580. J2: Softw Syst Model.Chenouard, R., Granvilliers, L., & Soto, R. (2008). Model-driven constraint programming. pages 236–246. Affiliation: CNRS, LINA, Universit de Nantes, France; Affiliation: Pontificia Universidad Catlica de, Valparaiso, Chile. Cited By (since 1996):8.Clark, T., & Muller, P.-A. (2012). Exploiting model driven technology: a tale of two startups. Software and Systems Modeling, 11(4), 481–493.Corneliussen, L. (2008). What do you think of model-driven software development?Costal, D., Gómez, C., & Guizzardi, G. (2011). Formal semantics and ontological analysis for understanding subsetting, specialization and redefinition of associations in uml. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6998 LNCS:189–203. cited By (since 1996)3.Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Maes, A., Género, M., Poels, G., & Piattini, M. (2010). The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of uml statechart diagrams. Information Sciences, 180(11), 2209–2220. Cited By (since 1996):14.Cuadrado, J.S., Izquierdo, J.L.C., & Molina, J.G. (2014). Applying model-driven engineering in small software enterprises. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 176 – 198. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Da Silva, A.R. (2015). Model-driven engineering: a survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Computer Languages Systems and Structures, 43, 139–155.Da Silva Teixeira, D.G.M., Quirino, G.K., Gailly, F., De Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, G., & Perini Barcellos, M. (2016). PoN-S: a Systematic Approach for Applying the Physics of Notation (PoN), (pp. 432–447). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Gallo, S. (2006). How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data and Knowledge Engineering, 58(3), 358 – 380. Including the special issue : {ER} 2004ER 2004.Davies, J., Milward, D., Wang, C.-W., & Welch, J. (2015). Formal model-driven engineering of critical information systems. Science of Computer Programming, 103(0), 88 – 113. Selected papers from the First International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems (FTSCS 2012).De Oca, I.M.-M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., & Rodríguez-Morffi, A. (2015). A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Information and Software Technology, 58, 187–205.DenHaan, J. (2009). 8 reasons why model driven development is dangerous @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2010). Model driven engineering vs the commando pattern @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2011a). Why aren’t we all doing model driven development yet @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2011b). Why there is no future model driven development @ONLINE.Di Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., & Pierantonio, A. (2013). Managing the coupled evolution of metamodels and textual concrete syntax specifications. cited By (since 1996)0.Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., & Ouyang, C. (2008). Semantics and analysis of business process models in {BPMN}. Information and Software Technology, 50(12), 1281–1294.Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., Ramos, I., & Fernández, L. (2011). A framework for the quality evaluation of mdwe methodologies and information technology infrastructures. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 2(4), 11–22.Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., & Torres, A.H. (2010). A quality model in a quality evaluation framework for mdwe methodologies. pages 495–506. Affiliation: Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informíticos, University of Seville, Seville, Spain., Cited By (since 1996):1.Dubray, J.-J. (2011). Why did mde miss the boat?.Escalona, M.J., Gutiérrez, J.J., Pérez-Pérez, M., Molina, A., Domínguez-Mayo, E., & Domínguez-Mayo, F.J. (2011). Measuring the Quality of Model-Driven Projects with NDT-Quality, (pp. 307–317). New York: Springer.Espinilla, M., Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., Ross, M., & Staples, G. (2011). A Method Based on AHP to Define the Quality Model of QuEF (Vol. 123, pp. 685–694). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Fabra, J., Castro, V.D., Álvarez, P., & Marcos, E. (2012). Automatic execution of business process models: exploiting the benefits of model-driven engineering approaches. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), 607–625. Novel approaches in the design and implementation of systems/software architecture.Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Oei, J.L.H., Rolland, C., Stamper, R.K., Assche, F.J.M.V., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., & Voss, K. (1996). Frisco: a framework of information system concepts. Technical report, The IFIP WG 8. 1 Task Group FRISCO.Fettke, P., Houy, C., Vella, A.-L., & Loos, P. (2012). Towards the Reconstruction and Evaluation of Conceptual Model Quality Discourses – Methodical Framework and Application in the Context of Model Understandability, volume 113 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, chapter 28, pages 406–421, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Finnie, S. (2015). Modeling community: Are we missing something?Fournier, C. (2008). Is uml [email protected], R., & Rumpe, B. (2007). Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In Future of Software Engineering, 2007, FOSE ’07 (pp. 37–54).Gallego, M., Giraldo, F.D., & Hitpass, B. (2015). Adapting the pbec-otss software selection approach for bpm suites: an application case. In 2015 34th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1–10).Galvão, I., & Goknil, A. (2007). Survey of traceability approaches in model-driven engineering. cited By (since 1996)22.Giraldo, F., España, S., Giraldo, W., & Pastor, O. (2015). Modelling language quality evaluation in model-driven information systems engineering: a roadmap. In 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) (pp. 64–69).Giraldo, F., España, S., & Pastor, O. (2014). Analysing the concept of quality in model-driven engineering literature: a systematic review. In 2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) (pp. 1–12).Giraldo, F.D., España, S., & Pastor, O. (2016). Evidences of the mismatch between industry and academy on modelling language quality evaluation. arXiv: 1606.02025 .González, C., & Cabot, J. (2014). Formal verification of static software models in mde: a systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 56(8), 821–838. cited By (since 1996)0.González, C.A., Büttner, F., Clarisó, R., & Cabot, J. (2012). Emftocsp: a tool for the lightweight verification of emf models. pages 44–50. Affiliation: cole des Mines de Nantes, INRIA, LINA, Nantes, France; Affiliation: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. Cited By (since 1996):1.Gorschek, T., Tempero, E., & Angelis, L. (2014). On the use of software design models in software development practice: an empirical investigation. Journal of Systems and Software, 95(0), 176– 193.Goulão, M., Amaral, V., & Mernik, M. (2016). Quality in model-driven engineering: a tertiary study. Software Quality Journal, 1–33.Grobshtein, Y., & Dori, D. (2011). Generating sysml views from an opm model: design and evaluation. Systems Engineering, 14(3), 327–340.Haan, J.d. (2008). 8 reasons why model-driven approaches (will) fail.Harel, D., & Rumpe, B. (2000). Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff, part i: The basic stuff, Israel. Technical report Jerusalem Israel.Harel, D., & Rumpe, B. (2004). Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of semantics? Computer, 37(10), 64–72.Hebig, R., & Bendraou, R. (2014). On the need to study the impact of model driven engineering on software processes. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2014 (pp. 164–168). New York: ACM.Heidari, F., & Loucopoulos, P. (2014). Quality evaluation framework (qef): modeling and evaluating quality of business processes. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 15(3), 193–223. Business Process Modeling.Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y., Matulevicius, R., & Classen, A. (2008). Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages. Software, IET, 2(3), 281–302. ID 2.Hindawi, M., Morel, L., Aubry, R., & Sourrouille, J.-L. (2009). Description and Implementation of a UML Style Guide (Vol. 5421, pp. 291–302). Berlin: Springer.Hoang, D. (2012). Current limitations of mdd and its implications @ONLINE.Hodges, W. (2013). Model theory Zalta, E.N. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2013 edition.Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., & Whittle, J. (2011a). Model-driven engineering practices in industry. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’11 (pp. 633–642). New York: ACM.Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., & Rouncefield, M. (2014). Model-driven engineering practices in industry: social, organizational and managerial factors that lead to success or failure. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 144–161. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., & Kristoffersen, S. (2011b). Empirical assessment of mde in industry. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’11 (pp. 471–480). New York: ACM.Igarza, I.M.H., Boada, D.H.G., & Valdés, A.P. (2012). Una introducción al desarrollo de software dirigido por modelos. Serie Científica, 5(3).ISO/IEC (2001). ISO/IEC 9126. Software engineering—Product quality. ISO/IEC.Izurieta, C., Rojas, G., & Griffith, I. (2015). Preemptive management of model driven technical debt for improving software quality. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA’15 (pp. 31–36). New York: ACM.Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012). Systematic literature studies: Database searches vs. backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM’12 (pp. 29–38). New York: ACM.Kahraman, G., & Bilgen, S. (2013). A framework for qualitative assessment of domain-specific languages. Software & Systems Modeling, 1–22.Kessentini, M., Langer, P., & Wimmer, M. (2013). Searching models, modeling search: On the synergies of sbse and mde (pp. 51–54).Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele University and Durham University Joint Report.Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., Pickard, L., Jones, P., Hoaglin, D., El Emam, K., & Rosenberg, J. (2002). Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(8), 721–734.Klinke, M. (2008). Do you use mda/mdd/mdsd, any kind of model-driven approach? Will it be the future?Köhnlein, J. (2013). Eclipse diagram editors from a user’s perspective.Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., & Polack, F.A. (2008). The grand challenge of scalability for model driven engineering. In Models in Software Engineering (pp. 48–53): Springer.Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Matragkas, N., Paige, R.F., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S., De Lara, J., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Tisi, M., & Cabot, J. (2013). A research roadmap towards achieving scalability in model driven engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Scalability in Model Driven Engineering, BigMDE’13 (pp. 2:1–2:10). New York: ACM.Krill, P. (2016). Uml to be ejected from microsoft visual studio (infoworld).Krogstie, J. (2012a). Model-based development and evolution of information systems: a quality approach, Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.Krogstie, J. (2012b). Quality of modelling languages, (pp. 249–280). London: Springer.Krogstie, J. (2012c). Quality of models, (pp. 205–247). London: Springer.Krogstie, J. (2012d). Specialisations of SEQUAL, (pp. 281–326). London: Springer.Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., & Sindre, G. (1995). Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Working Conference on Information System Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views (pp. 216–231). London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.Kruchten, P. (2000). The rational unified process: an introduction, 2nd edn. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Kruchten, P., Nord, R., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: from metaphor to theory and practice. Software, IEEE, 29(6), 18–21.Kulkarni, V., Reddy, S., & Rajbhoj, A. (2010). Scaling up model driven engineering – experience and lessons learnt. In Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., & Haugen, y. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 6395 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 331–345). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Laguna, M.A., & Marqués, J.M. (2010). Uml support for designing software product lines: the package merge mechanism, 16(17), 2313–2332.Lange, C. (2007a). Model size matters. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 4364 LNCS:211–216. cited By (since 1996)1.Lange, C., & Chaudron, M. (2005). Managing Model Quality in UML-Based Software Development. In 13th IEEE International Workshop on Technology and Engineering Practice, 2005 (pp. 7–16).Lange, C., Chaudron, M.R.V., Muskens, J., Somers, L.J., & Dortmans, H.M. (2003). An empirical investigation in quantifying inconsistency and incompleteness of uml designs. In Incompleteness of UML Designs, Proceedings Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, 6th International Conference on Unified Modeling Language, UML, 2003.Lange, C., DuBois, B., Chaudron, M., & Demeyer, S. (2006). An experimental investigation of uml modeling conventions. In Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., & Reggio, G. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 4199 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 27–41). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Lange, C.F.J., & Chaudron, M.R.V. (2006). Effe

A framework for evaluating the quality of modelling languages in MDE environments

This thesis presents the Multiple Modelling Quality Evaluation Framework method (hereinafter MMQEF), which is a conceptual, methodological, and technological framework for evaluating quality issues in modelling languages and modelling elements by the application of a taxonomic analysis. It derives some analytic procedures that support the detection of quality issues in model-driven projects, such as the suitability of modelling languages, traces between abstraction levels, specification for model transformations, and integration between modelling proposals. MMQEF also suggests metrics to perform analytic procedures based on the classification obtained for the modelling languages and artifacts under evaluation. MMQEF uses a taxonomy that is extracted from the Zachman framework for Information Systems (Zachman, 1987; Sowa and Zachman, 1992), which proposed a visual language to classify elements that are part of an Information System (IS). These elements can be from organizational to technical artifacts. The visual language contains a bi-dimensional matrix for classifying IS elements (generally expressed as models) and a set of seven rules to perform the classification. As an evaluation method, MMQEF defines activities in order to derive quality analytics based on the classification applied on modelling languages and elements. The Zachman framework was chosen because it was one of the first and most precise proposals for a reference architecture for IS, which is recognized by important standards such as the ISO 42010 (612, 2011). This thesis presents the conceptual foundation of the evaluation framework, which is based on the definition of quality for model-driven engineering (MDE). The methodological and technological support of MMQEF is also described. Finally, some validations for MMQEF are reported.Esta tesis presenta el método MMQEF (Multiple Modelling Quality Evaluation Framework), el cual es un marco de trabajo conceptual, metodológico y tecnológico para evaluar aspectos de calidad sobre lenguajes y elementos de modelado mediante la aplicación de análisis taxonómico. El método deriva procedimientos analíticos que soportan la detección de aspectos de calidad en proyectos model-driven tales como: idoneidad de lenguajes de modelado, trazabilidad entre niveles de abstracción, especificación de transformación de modelos, e integración de propuestas de modelado. MMQEF también sugiere métricas para ejecutar procedimientos analíticos basados en la clasificación obtenida para los lenguajes y artefactos de modelado bajo evaluación. MMQEF usa una taxonomía para Sistemas de Información basada en el framework Zachman (Zachman, 1987; Sowa and Zachman, 1992). Dicha taxonomía propone un lenguaje visual para clasificar elementos que hacen parte de un Sistema de Información. Los elementos pueden ser artefactos asociados a niveles desde organizacionales hasta técnicos. El lenguaje visual contiene una matriz bidimensional para clasificar elementos de Sistemas de Información, y un conjunto de siete reglas para ejecutar la clasificación. Como método de evaluación MMEQF define actividades para derivar analíticas de calidad basadas en la clasificación aplicada sobre lenguajes y elementos de modelado. El marco Zachman fue seleccionado debido a que éste fue una de las primeras y más precisas propuestas de arquitectura de referencia para Sistemas de Información, siendo ésto reconocido por destacados estándares como ISO 42010 (612, 2011). Esta tesis presenta los fundamentos conceptuales del método de evaluación basado en el análisis de la definición de calidad en la ingeniería dirigida por modelos (MDE). Posteriormente se describe el soporte metodológico y tecnológico de MMQEF, y finalmente se reportan validaciones.Aquesta tesi presenta el mètode MMQEF (Multiple Modelling Quality Evaluation Framework), el qual és un marc de treball conceptual, metodològic i tecnològic per avaluar aspectes de qualitat sobre llenguatges i elements de modelatge mitjançant l'aplicació d'anàlisi taxonòmic. El mètode deriva procediments analítics que suporten la detecció d'aspectes de qualitat en projectes model-driven com ara: idoneïtat de llenguatges de modelatge, traçabilitat entre nivells d'abstracció, especificació de transformació de models, i integració de propostes de modelatge. MMQEF també suggereix mètriques per executar procediments analítics basats en la classificació obtinguda pels llenguatges i artefactes de mode-lat avaluats. MMQEF fa servir una taxonomia per a Sistemes d'Informació basada en el framework Zachman (Zachman, 1987; Sowa and Zachman, 1992). Aquesta taxonomia proposa un llenguatge visual per classificar elements que fan part d'un Sistema d'Informació. Els elements poden ser artefactes associats a nivells des organitzacionals fins tècnics. El llenguatge visual conté una matriu bidimensional per classificar elements de Sistemes d'Informació, i un conjunt de set regles per executar la classificació. Com a mètode d'avaluació MMEQF defineix activitats per derivar analítiques de qualitat basades en la classificació aplicada sobre llenguatges i elements de modelatge. El marc Zachman va ser seleccionat a causa de que aquest va ser una de les primeres i més precises propostes d'arquitectura de referència per a Sistemes d'Informació, sent això reconegut per destacats estàndards com ISO 42010 (612, 2011). Aquesta tesi presenta els fonaments conceptuals del mètode d'avaluació basat en l'anàlisi de la definició de qualitat en l'enginyeria dirigida per models (MDE). Posteriorment es descriu el suport metodològic i tecnològic de MMQEF, i finalment es reporten validacions.Giraldo Velásquez, FD. (2017). A framework for evaluating the quality of modelling languages in MDE environments [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/90628TESI

A framework for variable content document generation with multiple actors

“NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Information and Software Technology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Information and Software Technology, Volume 56, Issue 9, September 2014, Pages 1101–1121 DOI10.1016/j.infsof.2013.12.006Context - Advances in customization have highlighted the need for tools supporting variable content document management and generation in many domains. Current tools allow the generation of highly customized documents that are variable in both content and layout. However, most frameworks are technology-oriented, and their use requires advanced skills in implementation-related tools, which means their use by end users (i.e. document designers) is severely limited. Objective - Starting from past and current trends for customized document authoring, our goal is to provide a document generation alternative in which variants are specified at a high level of abstraction and content reuse can be maximized in high variability scenarios. Method Based on our experience in Document Engineering, we identified areas in the variable content document management and generation field open to further improvement. We first classified the primary sources of variability in document composition processes and then developed a methodology, which we called DPL based on Software Product Lines principles to support document generation in high variability scenarios. Results - In order to validate the applicability of our methodology we implemented a tool DPLfw to carry out DPL processes. After using this in different scenarios, we compared our proposal with other state-of-the-art tools for variable content document management and generation. Conclusion - The DPLfw showed a good capacity for the automatic generation of variable content documents equal to or in some cases surpassing other currently available approaches. To the best of our knowledge, DPLfw is the only framework that combines variable content and document workflow facilities, easing the generation of variable content documents in which multiple actors play different roles.This work has been partially funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad under Grant TIPEx (TIN2010-19859-C03-03).Gómez Llana, A.; Penadés Gramage, MC.; Canos Cerda, JH.; Borges, MR.; Llavador Campos, M. (2014). A framework for variable content document generation with multiple actors. Information and Software Technology. 56(9):1101-1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.12.006S1101112156