Considerations regarding the agile development of portals

Starting with methodologies, methods and techniques used generally in the development of information systems, a personal approach regarding quick development of portals has been introduced. After a strict theoretical foundation the proposal has been applied within a real collaborative knowledge portal development project. We consider the proposed agile development approach (based on the prototype technique enriched with MDA valences) suitable to all kind of information systems. The agile development framework establishes the life-cycle phases of product development taking into account the desired functionalities.portal, prototype technique, model driven architecture, agile development

Comprehensive measurement framework for enterprise architectures

Enterprise Architecture defines the overall form and function of systems across an enterprise involving the stakeholders and providing a framework, standards and guidelines for project-specific architectures. Project-specific Architecture defines the form and function of the systems in a project or program, within the context of the enterprise as a whole with broad scope and business alignments. Application-specific Architecture defines the form and function of the applications that will be developed to realize functionality of the system with narrow scope and technical alignments. Because of the magnitude and complexity of any enterprise integration project, a major engineering and operations planning effort must be accomplished prior to any actual integration work. As the needs and the requirements vary depending on their volume, the entire enterprise problem can be broken into chunks of manageable pieces. These pieces can be implemented and tested individually with high integration effort. Therefore it becomes essential to analyze the economic and technical feasibility of realizable enterprise solution. It is difficult to migrate from one technological and business aspect to other as the enterprise evolves. The existing process models in system engineering emphasize on life-cycle management and low-level activity coordination with milestone verification. Many organizations are developing enterprise architecture to provide a clear vision of how systems will support and enable their business. The paper proposes an approach for selection of suitable enterprise architecture depending on the measurement framework. The framework consists of unique combination of higher order goals, non-functional requirement support and inputs-outcomes pair evaluation. The earlier efforts in this regard were concerned about only custom scales indicating the availability of a parameter in a range.Comment: 22 Page

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 quality management based on the Quality Model life cycle

Managing quality is a hard and expensive task that involves the execution and control of processes and techniques. For a good quality management, it is important to know the current state and the objective to be achieved. It is essential to take into account with a Quality Model that specifies the purposes of managing quality. QuEF (Quality Evaluation Framework) is a framework to manage quality in MDWE (Model-driven Web Engineering). This paper suggests managing quality but pointing out the Quality Model life cycle. The purpose is to converge toward a quality continuous improvement by means of reducing effort and time.Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación TIN2010-20057-C03-02Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación TIN 2010-12312-EJunta de Andalucía TIC-578

Functional Size Measurement and Model Verification for Software Model-Driven Developments: A COSMIC-based Approach

Historically, software production methods and tools have a unique goal: to produce high quality software. Since the goal of Model-Driven Development (MDD) methods is no different, MDD methods have emerged to take advantage of the benefits of using conceptual models to produce high quality software. In such MDD contexts, conceptual models are used as input to automatically generate final applications. Thus, we advocate that there is a relation between the quality of the final software product and the quality of the models used to generate it. The quality of conceptual models can be influenced by many factors. In this thesis, we focus on the accuracy of the techniques used to predict the characteristics of the development process and the generated products. In terms of the prediction techniques for software development processes, it is widely accepted that knowing the functional size of applications in order to successfully apply effort models and budget models is essential. In order to evaluate the quality of generated applications, defect detection is considered to be the most suitable technique. The research goal of this thesis is to provide an accurate measurement procedure based on COSMIC for the automatic sizing of object-oriented OO-Method MDD applications. To achieve this research goal, it is necessary to accurately measure the conceptual models used in the generation of object-oriented applications. It is also very important for these models not to have defects so that the applications to be measured are correctly represented. In this thesis, we present the OOmCFP (OO-Method COSMIC Function Points) measurement procedure. This procedure makes a twofold contribution: the accurate measurement of objectoriented applications generated in MDD environments from the conceptual models involved, and the verification of conceptual models to allow the complete generation of correct final applications from the conceptual models involved. The OOmCFP procedure has been systematically designed, applied, and automated. This measurement procedure has been validated to conform to the ISO 14143 standard, the metrology concepts defined in the ISO VIM, and the accuracy of the measurements obtained according to ISO 5725. This procedure has also been validated by performing empirical studies. The results of the empirical studies demonstrate that OOmCFP can obtain accurate measures of the functional size of applications generated in MDD environments from the corresponding conceptual models.Marín Campusano, BM. (2011). Functional Size Measurement and Model Verification for Software Model-Driven Developments: A COSMIC-based Approach [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/11237Palanci

Characterization and optimization of the magnetron directional amplifier

Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1999Many applications of microwave wireless power transmission (WPT) are dependent upon a high-powered electronically-steerable phased array composed of many radiating modules. The phase output from the high-gain amplifier in each module must be accurately controlled if the beam is to be properly steered. A highly reliable, rugged, and inexpensive design is essential for making WPT applications practical. A conventional microwave oven magnetron may be combined with a ferrite circulator and other external circuitry to create such a system. By converting it into a two-port amplifier, the magnetron is capable of delivering at least 30 dB of power gain while remaining phase-locked to the input signal over a wide frequency range. The use of the magnetron in this manner is referred to as a MDA (Magnetron Directional Amplifier). The MDA may be integrated with an inexpensive slotted waveguide array (SWA) antenna to form the Electronically-Steerable Phased Array Module (ESPAM). The ESPAM provides a building block approach to creating phased arrays for WPT. The size and shape of the phased array may be tailored to satisfy a diverse range of applications. This study provided an in depth examination into the capabilities of the MDA/ESPAM. The basic behavior of the MDA was already understood, as well as its potential applicability to WPT. The primary objective of this effort was to quantify how well the MDA could perform in this capacity. Subordinate tasks included characterizing the MDA behavior in terms of its system inputs, optimizing its performance, performing sensitivity analyses, and identifying operating limitations. A secondary portion of this study examined the suitability of the ESPAM in satisfying system requirements for the solar power satellite (SPS). Supporting tasks included an analysis of SPS requirements, modeling of the SWA antenna, and the demonstration of a simplified phased array constructed of ESPAM elements. The MDA/ESPAM is well suited for use as an amplifier or an element in a WPT phased array, providing over 75% efficiency and a fractional bandwidth exceeding 1.7% at 2.45 GHz. The results of this effort provide the WPT design engineer with tools to predict the MDA's optimum performance and limitations

Improving IT service management using an ontology-based and model-driven approach

Texto en inglés y resumen en inglés y españolLa adopción de marcos de trabajo de mejores prácticas que permiten la integración de las Tecnologías de la Información (TI) con el negocio, ayuda a las organizaciones a crear y compartir procesos de gestión de servicios de TI. Sin embargo, las guías y modelos publicados suelen especificarse en lenguaje natural o con representaciones gráficas que carecen de la semántica computacional necesaria para poder automatizar su validación, simulación e incluso su ejecución. En esta tesis se presenta Onto-ITIL, una propuesta basada en ontologías y en el enfoque de desarrollo de software dirigido por modelos que captura las mejores prácticas ofrecidas por ITIL® (del inglés Information Technology Infrastructure Library), y destinada a facilitar la prestación de servicios de TI. El objetivo de Onto-ITIL es ayudar a los expertos del dominio a modelar e implementar procesos de gestión de servicios de TI evitando ambigüedades semánticas y contradicciones. La formalización de los procesos de gestión de servicios de TI en términos de ITIL constituye un primer paso para cubrir la brecha que se da entre el negocio y las TI. Para definir las ontologías se ha utilizado OWL (del inglés Web Ontology Language). Adicionalmente, se ha definido un conjunto de reglas basadas en SWRL (del inglés Semantic Web Rule Language) que permiten enriquecer la ontología con una serie de restricciones semánticas y de reglas de inferencia de conocimiento. Por último, la definición de un conjunto de consultas basadas en SQWRL (del inglés Query-Enhanced Web Rule Language) permite recuperar conocimiento obtenido con OWL e inferido a través de las reglas SWRL. Además de formalizar los procesos de gestión de servicios de TI en base a las buenas prácticas consideradas por ITIL, Onto-ITIL también permite compartir, reutilizar e intercambiar las especificaciones de dichos procesos a través de mecanismos automatizados que proporcionan ciertos marcos de trabajo de comercio electrónico, como por ejemplo, ebXML. Mediante la adopción del enfoque MDE (del inglés Model-driven Engineering), se ha utilizado un DSL (del inglés Domain Specific Language) basado en la ontología Onto-ITIL que sirve para implementar sistemas de información basados en flujos de trabajo que dan soporte a los Sistemas de Gestión de Servicios de TI (SGSTI). Los modelos que se obtienen a partir de este lenguaje de modelado se pueden considerar modelos de alto nivel que han sido enriquecidos con conocimiento ontológico, y que están definidos exclusivamente en términos de lógica de negocio, es decir, que no presentan ningún aspecto arquitectónico o de plataforma de implementación. Con lo cual, de acuerdo con la arquitectura en cuatro capas propuesta por el OMG (del inglés Object Management Group), estos modelos se encontrarían a nivel CIM (del inglés Computation Independent Model). En resumen, la propuesta presentada en esta tesis permite: (i) formalizar el conocimiento asociado a los sistemas de gestión de servicios de TI en base a ontologías que recogen las buenas prácticas consideradas por ITIL; (ii) modelar la semántica de las actividades que definen los procesos de gestión de servicios de TI en forma de flujos de trabajo; (iii) generar de manera automática modelos de requisitos de alto nivel para implementar sistemas de información que se necesitan para dar soporte a dichos procesos; y (iv) a partir de los modelos anteriores, obtener modelos de más bajo nivel (llegando incluso al código de las aplicaciones) a través de transformaciones automáticas de modelos. La investigación llevada a cabo en esta tesis se ha validado mediante de la implementación de un caso de estudio real proporcionado por una compañía española que ofrece servicios de TI

The Component Packaging Problem: A Vehicle for the Development of Multidisciplinary Design and Analysis Methodologies

This report summarizes academic research which has resulted in an increased appreciation for multidisciplinary efforts among our students, colleagues and administrators. It has also generated a number of research ideas that emerged from the interaction between disciplines. Overall, 17 undergraduate students and 16 graduate students benefited directly from the NASA grant: an additional 11 graduate students were impacted and participated without financial support from NASA. The work resulted in 16 theses (with 7 to be completed in the near future), 67 papers or reports mostly published in 8 journals and/or presented at various conferences (a total of 83 papers, presentations and reports published based on NASA inspired or supported work). In addition, the faculty and students presented related work at many meetings, and continuing work has been proposed to NSF, the Army, Industry and other state and federal institutions to continue efforts in the direction of multidisciplinary and recently multi-objective design and analysis. The specific problem addressed is component packing which was solved as a multi-objective problem using iterative genetic algorithms and decomposition. Further testing and refinement of the methodology developed is presently under investigation. Teaming issues research and classes resulted in the publication of a web site, (http://design.eng.clemson.edu/psych4991) which provides pointers and techniques to interested parties. Specific advantages of using iterative genetic algorithms, hurdles faced and resolved, and institutional difficulties associated with multi-discipline teaming are described in some detail