Process support in MetaCASE: implementing the conceptual basis for enactable process models in MetaEdit+

Koskinen, Minna; Marttiin, Pentti

doi:10.1109/see.1997.591823

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The OPRR meta-modeling language and its extensions -GOPRR and GOPPRRonly deal with the product aspects of methods. However, a process meta-modeling language called GOPRR-p [18,19] has also been proposed as an extension to GOPRR; this language provides concepts and integration rules for defining different Process Modeling Languages (PML).…”

Section: Metaedit+mentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-Aided Method Engineering: An Analysis of Existing Environments

Niknafs

Ramsin

2008

Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analogous to Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE), which aims to facilitate Software Engineering through specialized tools, Computer-Aided Method Engineering (CAME) strives to support a wide range of activities carried out by method engineers. Although there is consensus on the importance of tool support in method engineering, existing CAME environments are incomplete prototypes, each covering just a few steps of the method engineering process. This paper summarizes the history and the state of the practice in CAME technology, and provides criteria-based critique on existing CAME environments, thus highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.

show abstract

Section: Metaedit+mentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-Aided Method Engineering: An Analysis of Existing Environments

Niknafs

Ramsin

2008

Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…system-specific knowledge as well as the rest of the environBut this implies that test engineers must be aware of all the ment. Some authors have explored approaches similar to that TTCN-3 or PLUTO programming details, on the one hand, and described in this paper [28], [29] and [10]. However, the idea all the system features on the other.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the Knowledge Stored in Systems Models to Derve Validation Tools and Environments

Yagüe

Garbajosa

2007

6th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is frequent that test tools are basically indepen-the models. The amount of knowledge related to scenarios dent from the application domain. This is usually the case for modeling is huge. Reference [2] reports that a lot of effort has languages as well. This reflection becomes particularly relevant been invested in techniques and approaches related to modelfor validation tools, since the validation process is closely related to requirements. Therefore, test engineers must work at a much based testing and validation, with limited success. Some other lower level of abstraction than that of the system domain. interesting references are [31, [4] and [5]. Therefore the apThe problem is especially relevant when dealing with complex proach taken by this paper is to model the system in line with systems, in which hardware and software are closely related, acceptance tests requirements. That is, the effort is focussed such as ambient intelligence systems, automotive, power plants, on the system interface required to support acceptance testing telecommunication and autonomic systems in general.The authors of this paper claim that validation tools can and avoids describig system behavior and will be domain specific in the future. For this reason, According to reference [6] acceptance testing is focused they will have to include knowledge defined in the system on different types of requirements such as functional, perrequirements. As explained within this paper, this knowledge can be incorporated into the validation tools with limited involvement formance, man-machie interacton. Followig [6] the main from the test engineer. These domain specific-tools will make the goals of acceptance testing are: to verify the man-machine task easier for test engineers. This paper analyzes the different interactions, validate the required functionality of the system, kinds of knowledge involved in domain-specific validation tools, verify that the system operates within the specified constraints specifically acceptance testing tools. The knowledge is expressed and check the systems external interfaces. Our work is aligned in terms of requirements and models. This paper also presents a model driven engineering approach with ISO/JEC 12207, Software hfecycle processes [7] and to derive validation tools and environments from system models. ISO/JEC 15288:2002, System lifecycle processes [8]. To clarify This approach uses model transformations. Derivation can be issues of terminology, the term 'testing' will be used in performed in either a semiautomatic or fully automatic way de-this paper to indicate some activities required to support pending on the system characteristics. Through these approaches, validations, i.e. testing is not a different process to validation. software and systems engineers can access to domain-specific Tests are structured into test procedures and test procedures validation tools during the early stages of the system life cycle. Te ade stru mber o t est procedures a redurs are made of a number of steps. Test procedures...

show abstract

“…Finally, ports allow method engineers to specify additional semantics with respect to how roles can be connected with objects; typically, in the diagrams, ports are attached to the objects in order to restrict the possible points of connection between the objects and the roles. The GOPRR metamodel [149] Since the GOPRR language is exclusively product-oriented, an extension was proposed in [150] to provide process support in MetaEdit+. The process-oriented extension of GOPRR is called GOPRR-p.…”

Section: Metaedit+mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model-Driven Approach for the Design, Implementation, and Execution of Software Development Methods

Úbeda¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Process support in MetaCASE: implementing the conceptual basis for enactable process models in MetaEdit+

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Computer-Aided Method Engineering: An Analysis of Existing Environments

Computer-Aided Method Engineering: An Analysis of Existing Environments

Applying the Knowledge Stored in Systems Models to Derve Validation Tools and Environments

A Model-Driven Approach for the Design, Implementation, and Execution of Software Development Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About