Transformación de modelos dirigida por atributos de calidad

González Huerta, J. (2010). Transformación de modelos dirigida por atributos de calidad. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/8627.Archivo delegad

Global Soil Changes (Report of an IIASA-ISSS-UNEP Task Force on the Role of Soil in Global Changes)

The present report is one of a series of documents by soil scientists in preparation of a coordinated input by the various national and international centers on soil research and management into the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programs (IGBP or "Global Change" Program) initiated by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU)

Towards using intelligent techniques to assist software specialists in their tasks

L’automatisation et l’intelligence constituent des préoccupations majeures dans le domaine de l’Informatique. Avec l’évolution accrue de l’Intelligence Artificielle, les chercheurs et l’industrie se sont orientés vers l’utilisation des modèles d’apprentissage automatique et d’apprentissage profond pour optimiser les tâches, automatiser les pipelines et construire des systèmes intelligents. Les grandes capacités de l’Intelligence Artificielle ont rendu possible d’imiter et même surpasser l’intelligence humaine dans certains cas aussi bien que d’automatiser les tâches manuelles tout en augmentant la précision, la qualité et l’efficacité. En fait, l’accomplissement de tâches informatiques nécessite des connaissances, une expertise et des compétences bien spécifiques au domaine. Grâce aux puissantes capacités de l’intelligence artificielle, nous pouvons déduire ces connaissances en utilisant des techniques d’apprentissage automatique et profond appliquées à des données historiques représentant des expériences antérieures. Ceci permettra, éventuellement, d’alléger le fardeau des spécialistes logiciel et de débrider toute la puissance de l’intelligence humaine. Par conséquent, libérer les spécialistes de la corvée et des tâches ordinaires leurs permettra, certainement, de consacrer plus du temps à des activités plus précieuses. En particulier, l’Ingénierie dirigée par les modèles est un sous-domaine de l’informatique qui vise à élever le niveau d’abstraction des langages, d’automatiser la production des applications et de se concentrer davantage sur les spécificités du domaine. Ceci permet de déplacer l’effort mis sur l’implémentation vers un niveau plus élevé axé sur la conception, la prise de décision. Ainsi, ceci permet d’augmenter la qualité, l’efficacité et productivité de la création des applications. La conception des métamodèles est une tâche primordiale dans l’ingénierie dirigée par les modèles. Par conséquent, il est important de maintenir une bonne qualité des métamodèles étant donné qu’ils constituent un artéfact primaire et fondamental. Les mauvais choix de conception, ainsi que les changements conceptuels répétitifs dus à l’évolution permanente des exigences, pourraient dégrader la qualité du métamodèle. En effet, l’accumulation de mauvais choix de conception et la dégradation de la qualité pourraient entraîner des résultats négatifs sur le long terme. Ainsi, la restructuration des métamodèles est une tâche importante qui vise à améliorer et à maintenir une bonne qualité des métamodèles en termes de maintenabilité, réutilisabilité et extensibilité, etc. De plus, la tâche de restructuration des métamodèles est délicate et compliquée, notamment, lorsqu’il s’agit de grands modèles. De là, automatiser ou encore assister les architectes dans cette tâche est très bénéfique et avantageux. Par conséquent, les architectes de métamodèles pourraient se concentrer sur des tâches plus précieuses qui nécessitent de la créativité, de l’intuition et de l’intelligence humaine. Dans ce mémoire, nous proposons une cartographie des tâches qui pourraient être automatisées ou bien améliorées moyennant des techniques d’intelligence artificielle. Ensuite, nous sélectionnons la tâche de métamodélisation et nous essayons d’automatiser le processus de refactoring des métamodèles. A cet égard, nous proposons deux approches différentes: une première approche qui consiste à utiliser un algorithme génétique pour optimiser des critères de qualité et recommander des solutions de refactoring, et une seconde approche qui consiste à définir une spécification d’un métamodèle en entrée, encoder les attributs de qualité et l’absence des design smells comme un ensemble de contraintes et les satisfaire en utilisant Alloy.Automation and intelligence constitute a major preoccupation in the field of software engineering. With the great evolution of Artificial Intelligence, researchers and industry were steered to the use of Machine Learning and Deep Learning models to optimize tasks, automate pipelines, and build intelligent systems. The big capabilities of Artificial Intelligence make it possible to imitate and even outperform human intelligence in some cases as well as to automate manual tasks while rising accuracy, quality, and efficiency. In fact, accomplishing software-related tasks requires specific knowledge and skills. Thanks to the powerful capabilities of Artificial Intelligence, we could infer that expertise from historical experience using machine learning techniques. This would alleviate the burden on software specialists and allow them to focus on valuable tasks. In particular, Model-Driven Engineering is an evolving field that aims to raise the abstraction level of languages and to focus more on domain specificities. This allows shifting the effort put on the implementation and low-level programming to a higher point of view focused on design, architecture, and decision making. Thereby, this will increase the efficiency and productivity of creating applications. For its part, the design of metamodels is a substantial task in Model-Driven Engineering. Accordingly, it is important to maintain a high-level quality of metamodels because they constitute a primary and fundamental artifact. However, the bad design choices as well as the repetitive design modifications, due to the evolution of requirements, could deteriorate the quality of the metamodel. The accumulation of bad design choices and quality degradation could imply negative outcomes in the long term. Thus, refactoring metamodels is a very important task. It aims to improve and maintain good quality characteristics of metamodels such as maintainability, reusability, extendibility, etc. Moreover, the refactoring task of metamodels is complex, especially, when dealing with large designs. Therefore, automating and assisting architects in this task is advantageous since they could focus on more valuable tasks that require human intuition. In this thesis, we propose a cartography of the potential tasks that we could either automate or improve using Artificial Intelligence techniques. Then, we select the metamodeling task and we tackle the problem of metamodel refactoring. We suggest two different approaches: A first approach that consists of using a genetic algorithm to optimize set quality attributes and recommend candidate metamodel refactoring solutions. A second approach based on mathematical logic that consists of defining the specification of an input metamodel, encoding the quality attributes and the absence of smells as a set of constraints and finally satisfying these constraints using Alloy

Maintainability and evolvability of control software in machine and plant manufacturing -- An industrial survey

Automated Production Systems (aPS) have lifetimes of up to 30-50 years, throughout which the desired products change ever more frequently. This requires flexible, reusable control software that can be easily maintained and evolved. To evaluate selected criteria that are especially relevant for maturity in software maintainability and evolvability of aPS, the approach SWMAT4aPS+ builds on a questionnaire with 52 questions. The three main research questions cover updates of software modules and success factors for both cross-disciplinary development as well as reusable models. This paper presents the evaluation results of 68 companies from machine and plant manufacturing (MPM). Companies providing automation devices and/or engineering tools will be able to identify challenges their customers in MPM face. Validity is ensured through feedback of the participating companies and an analysis of the statistical unambiguousness of the results. From a software or systems engineering point of view, almost all criteria are fulfilled below expectations

Microservice Transition and its Granularity Problem: A Systematic Mapping Study

Microservices have gained wide recognition and acceptance in software industries as an emerging architectural style for autonomic, scalable, and more reliable computing. The transition to microservices has been highly motivated by the need for better alignment of technical design decisions with improving value potentials of architectures. Despite microservices' popularity, research still lacks disciplined understanding of transition and consensus on the principles and activities underlying "micro-ing" architectures. In this paper, we report on a systematic mapping study that consolidates various views, approaches and activities that commonly assist in the transition to microservices. The study aims to provide a better understanding of the transition; it also contributes a working definition of the transition and technical activities underlying it. We term the transition and technical activities leading to microservice architectures as microservitization. We then shed light on a fundamental problem of microservitization: microservice granularity and reasoning about its adaptation as first-class entities. This study reviews state-of-the-art and -practice related to reasoning about microservice granularity; it reviews modelling approaches, aspects considered, guidelines and processes used to reason about microservice granularity. This study identifies opportunities for future research and development related to reasoning about microservice granularity.Comment: 36 pages including references, 6 figures, and 3 table

Generator-Composition for Aspect-Oriented Domain-Specific Languages

Software systems are complex, as they must cover a diverse set of requirements describing functionality and the environment. Software engineering addresses this complexity with Model-Driven Engineering ( MDE ). MDE utilizes different models and metamodels to specify views and aspects of a software system. Subsequently, these models must be transformed into code and other artifacts, which is performed by generators. Information systems and embedded systems are often used over decades. Over time, they must be modified and extended to fulfill new and changed requirements. These alterations can be triggered by the modeling domain and by technology changes in both the platform and programming languages. In MDE these alterations result in changes of syntax and semantics of metamodels, and subsequently of generator implementations. In MDE, generators can become complex software applications. Their complexity depends on the semantics of source and target metamodels, and the number of involved metamodels. Changes to metamodels and their semantics require generator modifications and can cause architecture and code degradation. This can result in errors in the generator, which have a negative effect on development costs and time. Furthermore, these errors can reduce quality and increase costs in projects utilizing the generator. Therefore, we propose the generator construction and evolution approach GECO, which supports decoupling of generator components and their modularization. GECO comprises three contributions: (a) a method for metamodel partitioning into views, aspects, and base models together with partitioning along semantic boundaries, (b) a generator composition approach utilizing megamodel patterns for generator fragments, which are generators depending on only one source and one target metamodel, (c) an approach to modularize fragments along metamodel semantics and fragment functionality. All three contributions together support modularization and evolvability of generators

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

Evaluation of Model Transformation Approaches for Model Refactoring

This paper provides a systematic evaluation framework for comparing model transformation approaches, based upon the ISO/IEC 9126-1 quality characteristics for software systems. We apply this framework to compare five transformation approaches (QVT-R, ATL, Kermeta, UMLRSDS and GrGen.NET) on a complex model refactoring case study: the amalgamation of apparent attribute clones in a class diagram. The case study highlights the problems with the specification and design of the refactoring category of model transformations, and provides a challenging example by which model transformation languages and approaches can be compared. We take into account a wide range of evaluation criteria aspects such as correctness, efficiency, flexibility, interoperability, reusability and robustness, which have not been comprehensively covered by other comparative surveys of transformation approaches. The results show clear distinctions between the capabilities and suitabilities of different approaches to address the refactoring form of transformation problem