A Comparative Analysis of Business Model Notations

Although there were many comparative literatures of Business Models, there were not clear comparison criteria. Therefore, these comparisons were fragmented based on different viewpoints. In general, questions on business models can be categorized by interrogatives. In other words, the interrogatives imply a set of key features of business model notations. The feature category of business models using the interrogative will provide a unified way to compare different business models. The paper first defines the fifteen key features of Business Model Notations with five interrogatives. Then we concretely compare typical Business Model Notations based on the key features. The result clarifies the difference of Business Model Notations by using the proposed comparison framework. The result also implies a method to choose appropriate business model notations by using a set of interrogatives which correspond to important questions on business models

On the Value of Quality Attributes for Refactoring Model Transformations Using a Multi-Objective Algorithm

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152454/1/QMOOD_for_ATL__Copy_.pd

The TTC 2015 Model Execution Case

Abstract. This paper describes a case study for the Transformation Tool Contest (TTC) 2015 concerning the execution of models. The case foresees the specification of the operational semantics of a subset of the UML activity diagram language with transformation languages. In particular, the computation of the end result of the execution of the activity diagrams is targeted as well as the provisioning of a precise trace for the complete execution. The evaluation concerns the correctness of the operational semantics specifications, its understandability and conciseness, as well as its performance

Modelling semantics of security risk assessment for bring your own device using metamodelling technique

Rapid changes in mobile computing devices or modern devices such as smartphones, tablets and iPads have encouraged employees to use their personal devices at workplace. Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD) phenomenon in an enterprise has become pervasive in demand for business purposes. Most organizations practice BYOD as it offers a wide variety of advantages such as increasing work productivity, reducing cost and giving employee’s satisfaction. Despite that, BYOD practices trigger opportunities and challenges for the enterprise if there have no security policies, regulations and management on personal devices. Common BYOD security threats includes data leakage, exposure to malicious malware and sensitive corporates information. In this study, the Security-based BYOD Risk Assessment Metamodel (Security-based BYODRAM), a high-level knowledge structure was proposed for describing Security-based BYOD Risk Assessment domain. Review on thirty-five existing models which comprises of Risk Assessment and BYOD security models was done to identify the important concepts and semantic. Meta Object Facility (MOF) was the metamodeling language used in developing the metamodel. This study contributes a platform of incorporating and sharing of the Security-based BYOD Risk Assessment knowledge and giving solutions in managing BYOD security breaches. Real BYOD scenarios such as the Ottawa Hospital, privacy risks in enterprise and independent schools in Western Australian were used in demonstrating the semantics of proposed metamodel

A DEVS-based pivotal modeling formalism and its verification and validation framework

System verification is an ever-lasting system engineering challenge. The increasing complexity in system simulation requires some level of expertise in handling the idioms of logic and discrete mathematics to correctly drive a full verification process. It is recognized that visual modeling can help to fill the knowledge gap between system experts and analysis experts. However, such an approach has been used on the one hand to specify the behavior of complex systems, and on the other hand to specify complex requirement properties, but not simultaneously. This paper proposes a framework that is unique in supporting a full system verification process based on the graphical modeling of both the system of interest and the requirements to be checked. Patterns are defined to transform the resulting models to formal specifications that a model checker can manipulate. A real-time crossing system is used to illustrate the proposed framework

Search-Based Information Systems Migration: Case Studies on Refactoring Model Transformations

Information systems are built to last for decades; however, the reality suggests otherwise. Companies are often pushed to modernize their systems to reduce costs, meet new policies, improve the security, or to be more competitive. Model-driven engineering (MDE) approaches are used in several successful projects to migrate systems. MDE raises the level of abstraction for complex systems by relying on models as first-class entities. These models are maintained and transformed using model transformations (MT), which are expressed by means of transformation rules to transform models from source to target meta-models. The migration process for information systems may take years for large systems. Thus, many changes are going to be introduced to the transformations to reflect the new business requirements, fix bugs, or to meet the updated metamodels. Therefore, the quality of MT should be continually checked and improved during the evolution process to avoid future technical debts. Most MT programs are written as one large module due to the lack of refactoring/modularization and regression testing tools support. In object-oriented systems, composition and modularization are used to tackle the issues of maintainability and testability. Moreover, refactoring is used to improve the non-functional attributes of the software, making it easier and faster for developers to work and manipulate the code. Thus, we proposed an intelligent computational search approach to automatically modularize MT. Furthermore, we took inspiration from a well-defined quality assessment model for object-oriented design to propose a quality assessment model for MT in particular. The results showed a 45% improvement in the developer’s speed to detect or fix bugs, and developers made 40% less errors when performing a task with the optimized version. Since refactoring operations changes the transformation, it is important to apply regression testing to check their correctness and robustness. Thus, we proposed a multi-objective test case selection technique to find the best trade-off between coverage and computational cost. Results showed a drastic speed-up of the testing process while still showing a good testing performance. The survey with practitioners highlighted the need of such maintenance and evolution framework to improve the quality and efficiency of the existing migration process.Ph.D.College of Engineering & Computer ScienceUniversity of Michigan-Dearbornhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149153/1/Bader Alkhazi Final Dissertation.pdfDescription of Bader Alkhazi Final Dissertation.pdf : Restricted to UM users only

Generic Quality-Aware Refactoring and Co-Refactoring in Heterogeneous Model Environments

Software has been subject to change, at all times, in order to make parts of it, for instance, more reusable, better to understand by humans, or to increase efficiency under a certain point of view. Restructurings of existing software can be complex. To prevent developers from doing this manually, they got tools at hand being able to apply such restructurings automatically. These automatic changes of existing software to improve quality while preserving its behaviour is called refactoring. Refactoring is well investigated for programming languages and mature tools exist for executing refactorings in integrated development environments (IDEs). In recent years, the development paradigm of Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) became more and more popular and we experience a shift in the sense that development artefacts are considered as models which conform metamodels. This can be understood as abstraction, which resulted in the trend that a plethora of new so-called model-based Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) arose. DSLs have become an integral part in the MDSD and it is obvious that models are subject to change, as well. Thus, refactoring support is required for DSLs in order to prevent users from doing it manually. The problem is that the amount of DSLs is huge and refactorings should not be implemented for new for each of them, since they are quite similar from an abstract viewing. Existing approaches abstract from the target language, which is not flexible enough because some assumptions about the languages have to be made and arbitrary DSLs are not supported. Furthermore, the relation between a strategy which finds model deficiencies that should be improved, a resolving refactoring, and the improved quality is only implicit. Focussing on a particular quality and only detecting those deficiencies deteriorating this quality is difficult, and elements of detected deficient structures cannot be referred to in the resolving refactoring. In addition, heterogeneous models in an IDE might be connected physically or logically, thus, they are dependent. Finding such connections is difficult and can hardly be achieved manually. Applying a restructuring in a model implied by a refactoring in a dependent model must also be a refactoring, in order to preserve the meaning. Thus, this kind of dependent refactorings require an appropriate abstraction mechanism, since they must be specified for dependent models of different DSLs. The first contribution, Role-Based Generic Model Refactoring, uses role models to abstract from refactorings instead of the target languages. Thus, participating structures in a refactoring can be specified generically by means of role models. As a consequence, arbitrary model-based DSLs are supported, since this approach does not make any assumptions regarding the target languages. Our second contribution, Role-Based Quality Smells, is a conceptual framework and correlates deficiencies, their deteriorated qualities, and resolving refactorings. Roles are used to abstract from the causing structures of a deficiency, which then are subject to resolving refactorings. The third contribution, Role-Based Co-Refactoring, employs the graph-logic isomorphism to detect dependencies between models. Dependent refactorings, which we call co-refactorings, are specified on the basis of roles for being independent from particular target DSLs. All introduced concepts are implemented in our tool Refactory. An evaluation in different scenarios complements the thesis. It shows that role models emerged as very powerful regarding the reuse of generic refactorings in arbitrary languages. Role models are suited as an interface for certain structures which are to be refactored, scanned for deficiencies, or co-refactored. All of the presented approaches benefit from it.:List of Figures xv List of Tables xvii List of Listings xix 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Language-Tool Generation Without Consideration Of Time And Space . . . . . 4 1.2. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3. Generic Quality-Aware Refactoring and Co-Refactoring in Heterogeneous Model Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Foundations 15 2.1. Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2. Model-Driven Software Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.2.1. Levels of Abstraction and Metamodelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.2. Model Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3. Role-Based Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Related Work 23 3.1. Model Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1.2. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.1.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.2. Determination of Quality-Related De ciencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.2.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.2.2. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.2.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.3. Co-Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3.2. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.3.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4. Role-Based Generic Model Refactoring 51 4.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.2. Specifying Generic Refactorings with Role Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.2.1. Specifying Structural Constraints using Role Models . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.2.2. Mapping Roles to Language Concepts Using Role Mappings . . . . . . . 57 4.2.3. Specifying Language-Independent Transformations using Refactoring Speci cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.2.4. Composition of Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4.3. Preserving Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5. Suggesting Role Mappings as Concrete Refactorings 73 5.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5.2. Automatic Derivation of Suggestions for Role Mappings with Graph Querying . 74 5.3. Reduction of the Number of Valid Matches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 5.4. Comparison to Model Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 6. Role-Based Quality Smells as Refactoring Indicator 79 6.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.2. Correlating Model De ciencies, Qualities and Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.2.1. Quality Smell Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.2.2. Quality Smell Calculation Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 7. A Quality Smell Catalogue for Android Applications 89 7.1. Quality Smell Catalogue Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 7.2. Acquiring Quality Smells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7.3. Structure-Based Quality Smells—A Detailed Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3.1. The Pattern Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3.2. Quality Smell: Interruption from Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7.4. Quality Smells for Android Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.4.1. Quality Smell: Data Transmission Without Compression . . . . . . . . . 96 7.4.2. Quality Smell: Dropped Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.3. Quality Smell: Durable WakeLock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.4. Quality Smell: Internal Use of Getters/Setters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.4.5. Quality Smell: No Low Memory Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7.4.6. Quality Smell: Rigid AlarmManager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7.4.7. Quality Smell: Unclosed Closeable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 7.4.8. Quality Smell: Untouchable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 7.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 8. Role-Based Co-Refactoring in Multi-Language Development Environments 105 8.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 8.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 8.3. Dependency Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8.3.1. Categories of Model Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8.3.2. When to Determine Model Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 8.3.3. How to Determine Model Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 8.4. Co-Refactoring Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.4.1. Specifying Coupled Refactorings with Co-Refactoring Speci cations . . 114 8.4.2. Specifying Bindings for Co-Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 8.4.3. Determination of Co-Refactoring Speci cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 8.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 8.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 9. Refactory: An Eclipse Tool For Quality-Aware Refactoring and Co-Refactoring 121 9.1. Refactoring Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9.1.1. Role Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9.1.2. Refactoring Speci cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 9.1.3. Role Model Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 9.1.4. Refactoring Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 9.1.5. Custom Refactoring Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.1.6. Pre- and Post-conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.1.7. Integration Into the Eclipse Refactoring Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 9.2. Quality Smell Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9.3. Co-Refactoring Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 9.3.1. Concrete Syntax of a CoRefSpec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 9.3.2. Expression Evaluation by Using an Expression Language . . . . . . . . . 138 9.3.3. UI and Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 9.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 10. Evaluation 143 10.1. Case Study: Reuse of Generic Refactorings in many DSLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 10.1.1. Threats to validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 10.1.2. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 10.1.3. Experience Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 10.2. Case Study: Suggestion of Valid Role Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 10.2.1. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 10.2.2. Evaluation and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 10.3. Proof of Concept: Co-Refactoring OWL and Ecore Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 10.3.1. Coupled OWL-Ecore Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 10.3.2. Realisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 10.3.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 11. Summary, Conclusion and Outlook 161 11.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 11.2. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 11.3. Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Appendix 169 A. List of Role Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 B. Comparison to Role Feature Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 C. Complete List of Role Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 D. List of all IncPL Patterns for Detecting Quality Smells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 E. Post-Processor of the Extract CompositeState refactoring for UML State Machines 183 F. Speci cation of the Conference Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 List of Abbreviations 187 Bibliography 19