Do Process Modelling Techniques Get Better? A Comparative Ontological Analysis of BPMN

Current initiatives in the field of Business Process Management (BPM) strive for the development of a BPM standard notation by pushing the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). However, such a proposed standard notation needs to be carefully examined. Ontological analysis is an established theoretical approach to evaluating modelling techniques. This paper reports on the outcomes of an ontological analysis of BPMN and explores identified issues by reporting on interviews conducted with BPMN users in Australia. Complementing this analysis we consolidate our findings with previous ontological analyses of process modelling notations to deliver a comprehensive assessment of BPMN

Cognitive Effectiveness of Visual Instructional Design Languages

The introduction of learning technologies into education is making the design of courses and instructional materials an increasingly complex task. Instructional design languages are identified as conceptual tools for achieving more standardized and, at the same time, more creative design solutions, as well as enhancing communication and transparency in the design process. In this article we discuss differences in cognitive aspects of three visual instructional design languages (E²ML, PoEML, coUML), based on user evaluation. Cognitive aspects are of relevance for learning a design language, creating models with it, and understanding models created using it. The findings should enable language constructors to improve the usability of visual instructional design languages in the future. The paper concludes with directions with regard to how future research on visual instructional design languages could strengthen their value and enhance their actual use by educators and designers by synthesizing existing efforts into a unified modeling approach for VIDLs

Towards an interoperable metamodel suite: size assessment as one input

In recent years, many metamodels have been introduced in the software engi- neering literature and standards. These metamodels vary in their focus across, for example, process, product, organizational and measurement aspects of software development and have typically been developed independently of each other with shared concepts being only accidental. There is thus an increasing concern in the standards communities that possible conicts of structure and semantics between these various metamodels will hinder their widespread adoption. The complexity of these metamodels has also increased significantly and is another barrier in their appreciation. This complexity is compounded when more than one metamodel is used in the lifecycle of a software project. Therefore there is a need to have interoperable metamodels. As a first step towards engendering interoperability and/or possible mergers between metamodels, we examine the size and complexity of various meta- models. To do this, we have used the Rossi and Brinkkemper metrics-based approach to evaluate the size and complexity of several standard metamodels including UML 2.3, BPMN 2.0, ODM, SMM and OSM. The size and complexity of these metamodels is also compared with the previous version of UML, BPMN and Activity diagrams. The comparatively large sizes of BPMN 2.0 and UML 2.3 suggest that future integration with these metamodels might be more difficult than with the other metamodels under study (especially ODM, SSM and OSM)

USER EVALUATION OF SYMBOLS FOR CORE BUSINESS PROCESS MODELING CONCEPTS

Process modeling notations are visual languages that use symbols to represent their main concepts. This study investigates the quality of such symbols from users’ perspective. The design of a symbol influences whether it is easy to spot in a model and is correctly associated with the concept it represents. In an empirical study with 188 participants, the normative ratings of process model symbols (for the basic concepts of start, end, task, AND, XOR) were gathered on the dimensions of perceptual pop-out, semantic transparency, perceptual discriminability, and aesthetics. Overall, the results are consistent with our predictions based on the theoretical analyses of the designs of the symbols. Prior familiarity with process modeling notations led to more clear-cut evaluations of routing symbols (AND, XOR) and a reduced tendency to prefer middle rating options, but it did not affect the evaluations of the other symbols. Standardization organizations and academic developers of notations can use insights from the study to enhance the usability of process modeling notations

Role-Based Access-Control for Databases

Liikudes üha enam paberivaba ari suunas, hoitakse üha enam tundlikku informatsiooni andmebaasides. Sellest tulenevalt on andmebaasid ründajatele väärtuslik sihtmärk. Levinud meetod andmete kaitseks on rollipõhine ligipääsu kontroll (role-based access control), mis piirab süsteemi kasutajate õiguseid vastavalt neile omistatud rollidele. Samas on turvameetmete realiseerimine arendajate jaoks aeganõudev käsitöö, mida teostatakse samaaegselt rakenduse toimeloogika realiseerimisega. Sellest tulenevalt on raskendatud turva vajaduste osas kliendiga läbirääkimine projekti algfaasides. See omakorda suurendab projekti reaalsete arenduskulude kasvamise riski, eriti kui ilmnevad turvalisuse puudujäägid realisatsioonis. Tänapäeva veebirakendustes andmebaasi ühenduste puulimine (connec-tion pooling ), kus kasutatakse üht ja sama ühendust erinevate kasutajate teenindamiseks, rikub vähima vajaliku õiguse printsiipi. Kõikidel ühendunud kasutajatel on ligipääs täpselt samale hulgale andmetele, mille tulemusena võib lekkida tundlik informatsioon (näiteks SQLi süstimine (SQL injection ) või vead rakenduses). Lahenduseks probleemile pakume välja vahendid rollipõhise ligipääsu kontorolli disainimiseks tarkvara projekteerimise faasis. Rollipõhise ligipääsu kontorolli modelleerimiseks kasutame UML'i laiendust SecureUML. Antud mudelist on võimalik antud töö raames valminud vahenditega genereerida koodi, mis kontrollib ligipääsu õiguseid andmebaasi tasemel. Antud madaltasemekontroll vähendab riski, et kasutajad näevad andmeid, millele neil ligipääsu õigused puuduvad. Antud töös läbiviidud uuring näitas, et mudelipõhine turvalisuse arendamise kvaliteet on kõrgem võrreldes programmeerijate poolt kirjutatud koodiga. Kuna turvamudel on loodud projekteerimise faasis on selle semantiline täielikkus ja korrektsus kõrge, millest tulenevalt on seda kerge lugeda ja muuta ning seda on lihtsam kasutada arendajate ja klientide vahelises suhtluses.With the constant march towards a paperless business environment, database systems are increasingly being used to hold more and more sensitive information. This means they present an increasingly valuable target for attackers. A mainstream method for information system security is Role-based Access Control (RBAC), which restricts system access to authorised users. However the implementation of the RBAC policy remains a human intensive activity, typically, performed at the implementation stage of the system development. This makes it difficult to communicate security solutions to the stakeholders earlier and raises the system development cost, especially if security implementation errors are detected. The use of connection pooling in web applications, where all the application users connect to the database via the web server with the same database connection, violates the the principle of minimal privilege. Every connected user has, in principle, access to the same data. This may leave the sensitive data vulnerable to SQL injection attacks or bugs in the application. As a solution we propose the application of the model-driven development to define RBAC mechanism for data access at the design stages of the system development. The RBAC model created using the SecureUML approach is automatically translated to source code, which implements the modelled security rules at the database level. Enforcing access-control at this low level limits the risk of leaking sensitive data to unauthorised users. In out case study we compared SecureUML and the traditional security model, written as a source code, mixed with business logic and user-interface statements. The case study showed that the model-driven security development results in significantly better quality for the security model. Hence the security model created at the design stage contains higher semantic completeness and correctness, it is easier to modify and understand, and it facilitates a better communication of security solutions to the system stakeholders than the security model created at the implementation stage

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 Empirical Comparison of the Usability of BPMN and UML Activity Diagrams for Business Users

The widespread implementation of Business Process Management (BPM) strategies has increased the demand for an integral approach to business process modeling, in which all stakeholders can effectively participate and together shape a company’s business processes. Amongst others, this demand was a basis for the development of the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) as a proposed industry standard. It does not only provide technical advantages such as a support for serviceoriented computing, but also claims to be readily usable for business users. Following this presumption, BPMN is even used by the Object Management Group (OMG). It adopted BPMN instead of the Activity Diagram (UML AD) as the core standard to create a business modeling framework. For companies, however, changing to a new process modeling language is a significant expense factor. Furthermore, consolidated findings on whether BPMN is indeed more usable for business users than UML AD are missing. In this paper, we present results from a comprehensive empirical comparison of both languages, in which we examined the application by business users during a model creation task. Results indicate that the UML AD is at least as usable as BPMN, since BPMN did neither differ significantly in effectiveness, efficiency, nor user satisfaction

Unleashing the Power of Sound: Revisiting the Physics of Notations for Modelling with auditory symbols

Sound - the oft-neglected sense for Software Engineering - is a crucial component of our daily lives, playing a vital role in how we interact with the world around us. In this paper, we challenge the traditional boundaries of Software Engineering by proposing a new approach based on sound design for using sound in modelling tools that is on par with visual design. By drawing upon the seminal work of Moody on the `Physics' of Notations for visual design, we develop a comprehensive catalogue of principles that can guide the design of sound notations. Using these principles, we develop a catalogue of sounds for UML and report on an empirical study that supports their usefulness. Our study lays the foundation for building more sophisticated sound-based notations. The guidelines for designing symbolic sounds for software models are an essential starting point for a new research thread that could significantly and effectively enable the use of sound in modelling tools