No abstract

No abstract

A semiotic framework for evaluating the quality of conceptual models was proposed by (Lindland OI, Sindre G and Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modelling, IEEE Software 11(2), 41-49) and has later been extended in several works. While the extensions have fixed some of the limitations of the initial framework, other limitations remain. In particular, the framework is too static in its view upon semantic quality, mainly considering models, not modelling activities, and comparing these models to a static domain rather than seeing the model as a facilitator for changing the domain. Also, the framework's definition of pragmatic quality is quite narrow, focusing on understanding, in line with the semiotics of Morris, while newer research in linguistics and semiotics has focused beyond mere understanding, on how the model is used and impact its interpreters. The need for a more dynamic view in the semiotic quality framework is particularly evident when considering process models, which themselves often prescribe or even enact actions in the problem domain, hence a change to the model may also change the problem domain directly. This paper discusses the quality framework in relation to active process models and suggests a revised framework based on this.

No abstract

Cheating in e-exams and paper exams: the perceptions of engineering students and teachers in Norway. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.