A comparative review of CASE shells: A preliminary framework and research outcomes

Marttiin, Pentti; Rossi, Matti; Tahvanainen, Veli-Pekka; Lyytinen, Kalle

doi:10.1016/0378-7206(93)90022-l

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each metaCASE environment takes a different view on methods, and they employ different mechanisms for defining the supported method. Furthermore, the supported method aspects vary considerably (see Marttiin et al, 1993;Vessey et al, 1992;Verhoef and ter Hofstede 1995). For example, some environments define integration just for techniques, whereas others tie techniques to the IS development process.…”

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Functional Framework for Evaluating Method Engineering Environments: the case of Maestro II/ Decamerone and MetaEdit+

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CASE environments with method customisation capabilities and Computer Aided Method Engineering (CAME) environments have emerged during the last few years. While many research papers discuss the principles of method engineering and suggest requirements for new environments, we do not have critical evaluations of CAME environments using a wider method engineering framework. The aims of this study are twofold: I) to build a preliminary framework for comparative studies of CAME environments, and 2) to increase the knowledge of the 'state of the art' in CAME by evaluating two CAME environments. We adapt a functional framework -originally built for CASE technology -to examine the following two research questions: How well can a method be defined in a CAME environment?, and How well is the defined method supported in a customisable CASE environment? The environments chosen for evaluation are Maestro II IDecamerone, and MetaEdit+. As an outcome, we will describe what framework aspects these environments support, and discuss the aspects not supported.

show abstract

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Functional Framework for Evaluating Method Engineering Environments: the case of Maestro II/ Decamerone and MetaEdit+

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1993, in what is probably the first language workbench comparison, Marttiin et al [4] compared three tools (QuickSpec, RAMATIC, and Customizer), offering a framework for comparison that took into account the different tasks in language development and the effectiveness of the tools for carrying out the task. They used the five languages of the SMARTIE method as sample languages to be implemented in all the tools.…”

Section: Previous Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical comparison of language workbenches

Kelly¹

2013

Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production use of Domain-Specific Modeling languages has consistently shown productivity increase by a factor of 5-10. However, the spread of DSM has been slowed by projects stalling even before the language was built, often citing problems with the chosen tool. With a wide variety of language workbench tools for DSM, there is a need for objective empirical tool comparisonparticularly as the little research so far shows a range of 50 times more effort between the most and least efficient tools. This article looks at existing empirical research and an experimental design for a future comparison. We aim at increasing objectivity and repeatability while keeping overall effort practical, and providing worthwhile returns for the participants.

show abstract

“…Although various meta-CASE tools exist, their support for the description of the semantics of more than one methodology is limited [2]. A new CASE tool, MOOT (Meta Object-Oriented Tool) is being developed to address these and other identified deficiencies in CASE tool technology [3,4,5,6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing the client user interface for a methodology independent OO CASE tool

Phillips

Adams²,

Page³

et al.

Proceedings 1998 Australasian Computer Human Interaction Conference. OzCHI'98 (Cat. No.98EX234)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MOOT (Meta Object Oriented Tool) is an intelligent methodology independent customisable OO CASE tool. One of the major goals of MOOT is to provide flexible support for the description of the semantics and notations of arbitrary methodologies. This is provided through the employment of two distinct specification languages. This paper describes the design of the client user interface for MOOT. Both functional and non-functional requirements of the interface are defined, and design issues relating to the look and feel of the interface are discussed. Details of an instantiation for the Coad and Yourdon OOA/OOD methodology are presented and discussed.

show abstract

A comparative review of CASE shells: A preliminary framework and research outcomes

Cited by 20 publications

References 5 publications

A Functional Framework for Evaluating Method Engineering Environments: the case of Maestro II/ Decamerone and MetaEdit+

A Functional Framework for Evaluating Method Engineering Environments: the case of Maestro II/ Decamerone and MetaEdit+

Empirical comparison of language workbenches

Designing the client user interface for a methodology independent OO CASE tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About