Analysing the concept of quality in model-driven engineering literature: A systematic review

Giraldo, Fáber D.; España, Sergio; Pastor, Óscar

doi:10.1109/rcis.2014.6861030

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These include the subjectivity of the practitioners, the misalignment between the real application in model-driven scenarios and the research effort required, and the implications that quality in model-driven scenarios must be considered as part of an integral quality evaluation process. This paper builds upon previous works by the authors (Giraldo et al, 2014 and makes the following contributions:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In the RCIS 2014 conference, we first presented the preliminary results of a Systematic Literature Review (SR) that was performed over 21 months, with the goal of identifying the main categories in quality definition in MDE (Giraldo et al, 2014). This review is ongoing since we are attempting to demonstrate the diversity in the resulting definitions, including the most recent ones.…”

Section: A Literature Review About Models and Modelling Language Qualmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second definition is based on six quality categories (Domain appropriateness, Comprehensibility appropriateness, Participant appropriateness, Modeller appropriateness, Tool appropriateness, and Organisational appropriateness). Table 2 Evaluation scheme applied for model quality studies in accordance with RQ2 (Giraldo et al, 2014). …”

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidences from model-driven works and real applications suggest symptoms of quality assessment over models. In (Giraldo et al, 2014), the authors demonstrated the wide divergence in quality conception for MDE.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 describes quality in MDE contexts and includes an extension of a previous systematic literature review (Giraldo et al, 2014) to identify the main categories of quality conceptualization in MDE to date. Section 3 shows the results of a literature review to determine the mismatch between the quality conceptions in research and the quality conceptions of industrial practitioners and communities of model-driven practitioners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Giraldo-Velásquez, FD.; España Cubillo, S.; Pastor López, O.; Giraldo, WJ. (2016). Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering. Software Quality Journal. 1-66. doi:10.1007/s11219-016-9350-6. Considerations about quality in model-driven engineeringCurrent state and challenges.Fáber D. Giraldo · Sergio España · Oscar Pastor · William J. GiraldoReceived: date / Accepted: date Abstract The 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 modeldriven 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 modelling 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 sixteen 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 25000), 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 modelling 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 modelling 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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: A Literature Review About Models and Modelling Language Qualmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations