A Quality-Driven Software Architecture Design Method for IoT Systems

40273841 (科研費)南山大学IoTシステムのための品質主導型ソフトウェアアーキテクチャ設計手法の研究 2020～2022年度科学研究費助成事業 (基盤研究 (C) (一般)) 研究成果報告書33917 (科研費)202220K11759 (科研費)research repor

A Comprehensive Study for Modern Models: Linking Requirements with Software Architectures

Several models recently have been addressed in software engineering for requirements transformation. However, such transformation models have encountered many problems due to the nature of requirements. In the classical transformation modeling, some requirements are discovered to be missing or erroneous at later stages, in addition to major assumptions that may affect the quality of the software. This has created a crucial need for new approaches to requirements transformation. In this paper, a comprehensive study is presented in the main modern models of linking requirements to software architectures. An extensive evaluation is conducted to investigate the capabilities of such modern models to overcome those limitations when transforming requirements, validating their consideration of bringing quality for the software development process. Key research gaps and open issues are discussed, highlighting the possible future directions that can be considered in this field

Migrating Legacy Systems to Service-Oriented Architectures

This paper presents a methodology for migrating legacy systems towards Service-Oriented Architectures. The approach is based on source code analysis for identifying the contribution of code fragments to architectural elements and graph transformation for architectural migration, allowing for a high degree of automation. In order to transform existing application architectures into SOAs, the methodology has to be used in two dimensions, a technological and functional one. The work presented here is being developed in the context of a collaboration between academia and industry, and is aimed at being applied in real reengineering projects

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

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

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

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

AN EMERGING THEORY ON THE INTERACTION BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING AND SYSTEMS ARCHITECTING BASED ON A SUITE OF EXPLORATORY EMPIRICAL STUDIES

Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting are often considered the most important phases of the software development lifecycle. Because of their close proximity in the software development lifecycle, there is a high degree of interaction between these two processes. While such interaction has been recognized and researched in terms of new technology (particularly methods and tools), there is a distinct lack of empirical understanding regarding the scientific properties of this interaction. Furthermore, in Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting, not only technical but human aspects are considered critical for the success of these processes due to these processes lying at the front-end of the development cycle and therefore being more aligned with real-world issues. Thus, the scientific properties of the interactions between Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting can be broken down into these two key aspects. For instance, the following example research questions relate to such scientific properties: What is the impact of an existing system’s architecture on requirements decision-making? What kinds of requirements-oriented problems are encountered during architecting? What is the impact of an existing systems architecture on new requirements being elicited? What is the impact of requirements engineering knowledge on systems architecting? There is little in the literature addressing such questions. This thesis explores such issues through a suite of six exploratory empirical studies that were conducted over the last five years. Based on the observations from these studies, an emerging theory is proposed that describes the impact of human and process factors in the interaction between Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting. The impact of this emerging body of knowledge is deemed to be on the following: technology development for Requirements Engineering and Software Architecting (methods, tools, processes, etc.); hiring and training personnel for Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecture processes in industry; Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecture project planning; curriculum improvement in academia; and future empirical research in Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting

A Study on Architecture Development and Evaluation of Navigational System Platform for Autonomous Ship

자율운항선박은 다양한 기술과 시스템들의 연결, 향상된 기능요구 등 쉽게 정의하기 어려운 개발 분야 이지만, 해운과 조선 산업의 새로운 발전 동력으로 주목 받고 있다. 원격운항과 높은 자동화 수준을 구현하기 위해서는 선내 개별 장치들을 하나로 연결하고, 수집된 정보기반의 서비스와 응용시스템 제공 및 보안관리가 가능한 플랫폼 기술이 요구된다. 국내외 다양한 프로젝트들은 자율운항선박 플랫폼을 개발하였거나 개발 중이지만, 국제적으로 상용화된 플랫폼은 없으며, 개발을 위한 표준화된 기술적 접근방법이 제시되어 있지 않다. 개발된 선박 플랫폼들은 특정한 해역에 적용되거나, 프로젝트 콘셉트에 따라 구현되어 플랫폼들의 성능과 기능, 품질 등이 상이하다. 또한 플랫폼 개발 과정에서 이해관계자 관점이 반영되지 않은 경우 성능이 떨어지고 필요하지 않은 기능들을 포함할 수 있다. 따라서 향상된 성능과 기능을 위해 자율운항선박 플랫폼 개발초기에 이해관계자 관점의 반영이 요구된다. 플랫폼 개발 초기에 반영되지 않는다면, 프로젝트의 실패나 개발 이후 수정을 위한 많은 비용이 발생하기 때문이다. 본 연구는 자율운항선박 플랫폼의 상용화와 표준화를 위한 기술적 접근방법을 제시하고, 이해관계자 관점이 플랫폼 개발에 반영될 수 있도록 소프트웨어 아키텍처 이론을 적용한 개방형 플랫폼 아키텍처 개발을 목적으로 하였다. 개방형 플랫폼 아키텍처 개발은 자율운항선박 항해시스템을 대상으로 하였다. 항해시스템은 인적요소가 구성 장비 및 시스템, 컴포넌트들을 연결하고 있어 자율운항선박에서 가장 많은 변화가 예상되며, 소프트웨어 아키텍처 개발과정의 적용에 적정한 개발범위를 가지고 있기 때문이다. 이러한 연구목적 달성을 위해 소프트웨어 아키텍처 개발 이론 및 기법을 다음과 같이 적용하여 연구를 수행하였다. 먼저, 항해시스템플랫폼의 명확한 정의와 기능을 선행연구 및 기술동향, 항해시스템 분석을 통해 아키텍처 개발을 위한 필수 기능요구 사항으로 제시하였다. 아키텍처 개발에 필요한 기능요구사항을 도출하였고, 기존 선박 플랫폼과 차별성 및 항해시스템플랫폼의 목적을 명확히 하였다. 아키텍처 개발에는 기능요구사항 뿐 아니라 비기능 요구사항이 설계요인으로 함께 제시되어야 하므로, 이를 위해 이해관계자 중심의 워크숍(QAW, Quality Attribute Workshop)을 실시하였다. 워크숍을 통해 참여한 이해관계자들은 앞서 정의된 항해시스템플랫폼의 기능요구사항을 기반으로 비기능 요구사항을 도출하고 중요도와 구현성에 따라 우선순위화 하였다. 다음으로 이해관계자들이 도출한 비기능 요구사항과 관련되는 주요 항해장비들을 데이터 입력방식, 기능, 관련 항해업무에 따라 분류하여 코드화하였다. 코드화된 항해장비들의 특성을 관련 비기능 요구사항과 함께 품질속성 기반으로 아키텍처에 필요한 모듈들을 설계하였다. 모듈 설계를 기반으로 항해시스템플랫폼의 아키텍처를 개발하였다. 아키텍처에 대한 평가는 아키텍처 트레이드오프 분석기법(ATAM, Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)을 적용하였으며, 작성된 아키텍처와 품질속성 시나리오 및 유틸리티 트리에 대해 평가를 수행하였다. 이 과정을 통해 아키텍처에서 발생할 수 있는 문제점이나 위험요소를 파악하기 위한 설계 접근방법을 평가할 수 있었으며, 개선사항을 적용해 최종적인 항해시스템플랫폼 아키텍처를 작성하였다. 본 연구의 주요한 결과를 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 항해시스템플랫폼의 명확한 정의와 기능을 확인하기 위한 항해시스템 문제점 분석에서, 향상된 항해장비 적용과 확장을 위한 네트워크 구조개선, 전원관리, 시간 동기화 및 플랫폼 디스플레이와 컨트롤러의 통합 필요성을 확인하였다. 둘째, 워크숍을 통해, 이해관계자들이 요구하는 항해시스템플랫폼에 대한 성능이 구체적인 시간이나 수치로 표현되고, 순위화를 통해 아키텍처에 우선적으로 고려되어야 하는 비기능 요구사항을 확인하였다. 워크숍을 통한 이해관계자들의 비기능 요구사항 정제는, 설문보다 구체적인 성능 제시와 다양한 위험요소 도출이 가능하였다. 셋째, 아키텍처 트레이드오프 분석기법으로 품질속성과 모듈 설계를 평가함으로서, 아키텍처 개발에 참조할 수 있는 결정요소들을 추가적으로 정의하였다. 지속적으로 항해시스템플랫폼 아키텍처를 평가하고 결과를 반영한다면 기능과 품질 개선이 가능할 것으로 확인되었다. 본 연구는 자율운항선박 플랫폼 개발에서 이해관계자의 관점을 반영하기 위해 연구를 수행한 점과 표준화와 상용화를 위해 오픈 플랫폼 아키텍처를 개발하여 기술적인 접근 방법을 제시하고자 한 것에 그 의의를 찾을 수 있다. 소프트웨어 아키텍처 개발과정을 적용하여 플랫폼 개발의 단계적인 접근 방법을 제시할 수 있었으며, 이해관계자들의 이해를 돕고 개발공정에 필수적인 밑그림을 효과적으로 제시하였다. 제시된 항해시스템플랫폼은 실용적 측면에서 항해장비들의 연결을 간소화하고, 통합 디스플레이와 컨트롤러로 많은 공간을 요구하지 않으면서 새로운 장비의 적용을 지원할 수 있다. 국제적인 표준화를 통해 선박에 적용된다면, 원격운항을 위한 기능구현과 통합 전원관리와 시간관리, 플랫폼 중심의 보안 강화가 가능하고 더욱 다양한 서비스와 기능 제공을 위한 환경이 구축될 수 있을 것이다.제1장 서 론 1 1.1 연구 배경 1 1.2 연구 목적 및 범위 5 1.3 연구 방법 및 구성 6 제2장 기술동향 및 관련연구 9 2.1 자율운항선박 기술동향 및 관련연구 9 2.1.1 국제해사기구 동향 9 2.1.2 국제적 개발동향 11 2.1.3 자율운항선박 관련연구 15 2.2 선박 플랫폼 기술 및 항해장비 동향 20 2.2.1 선박 플랫폼 개발동향 20 2.2.2 선박 항해장비 동향 26 2.3 자율운항선박 플랫폼 29 2.3.1 플랫폼 기술 29 2.3.2 자율운항선박 플랫폼 요구기능 32 제 3 장 항해시스템플랫폼 기능 정의 33 3.1 항해시스템플랫폼 개발절차 33 3.1.1 플랫폼 개발범위 33 3.1.2 개발방법 및 절차 35 3.2 항해시스템 개선요소 39 3.2.1 항해시스템 구성 39 3.2.2 시스템적 특징 46 3.2.3 개선요소 도출 48 3.3 항해시스템플랫폼 기능 52 3.3.1 항해시스템플랫폼의 차별성 52 3.3.2 항해시스템플랫폼 핵심기능 53 제 4 장 항해시스템플랫폼 모듈 설계 55 4.1 이해관계자 QA 분석 55 4.1.1 이해관계자 구성 56 4.1.2 기능 요구사항과 비기능 요구사항 58 4.1.3 개발 제약사항 66 4.1.4 이해관계자 QA 68 4.2 항해장비 및 업무 분석 72 4.2.1 주요 항해장비 72 4.2.2 항해업무와 관련정보 81 4.2.3 항해장비 및 업무정보 코드화 86 4.3 아키텍처 모듈 설계 89 4.3.1 아키텍처 모듈 설계요소 90 4.3.2 QA 기반 모듈 설계 93 제 5 장 항해시스템플랫폼 아키텍처 개발 및 평가 105 5.1 항해시스템플랫폼 아키텍처 개발 105 5.1.1 아키텍처 패턴 105 5.1.2 유스케이스 아키텍처 107 5.1.3 배치 아키텍처 110 5.2 ATAM 아키텍처 평가 113 5.2.1 ATAM 평가계획 113 5.2.2 유틸리티 트리 117 5.2.3 아키텍처 및 모듈 설계 평가 120 5.3 평가 반영 및 항해시스템플랫폼 적용 133 5.3.1 아키텍처 개선 요구사항 133 5.3.2 아키텍처 수정 및 재설계 135 5.3.3 항해시스템플랫폼 적용 139 제6장 결 론 143Docto