The Relevance of Model-Driven Engineering Thirty Years from Now

Mussbacher, Gunter; Amyot, Daniel; Breu, Ruth; Bruel, Jean‐Michel; Cheng, Betty H. C.; Collet, Philippe; Combemale, Benôıt; France, Robert; Heldal, Rogardt; Hill, James H.; Kienzle, Jörg; Schöttle, Matthias; Steimann, Friedrich; Stikkolorum, Dave R.; Whittle, Jon

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_12

Cited by 83 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for the industrial context, specialized websites (grey literature 12 ) make significant contributions to the quality from a practitioners' perspective. We found 49 industrial MDE Quality evidence in industry MDE Quality evidence in academic & research Industrial issue 01 (Vara and Marcos, 2012;Cuadrado et al, 2014;Hutchinson et al, 2014;Bertrand Portier, 2009;Haan, 2008;Whittle et al, 2014;Dubray, 2011;Linders, 2015;Tone, 2010;Finnie, 2015;Klinke, 2008;Vallecillo, 2014;Hebig and Bendraou, 2014;Brown, 2009;DenHaan, 2009DenHaan, , 2011bPierson, 2007;Cabot, 2009;Brambilla, 2016;OMG, 2016;Mohagheghi et al, 2009b;Igarza et al, 2012;Clark and Muller, 2012;Whittle et al, 2015;Aranda et al, 2012;Baker et al, 2005;Whittle et al, 2013;Cuadrado et al, 2014;Hoang, 2012;Platania, 2016;Fournier, 2008) (Agner et al, 2013;Panach et al, 2015a;Davies et al, 2006;Mussbacher et al, 2014;Quintero and Muñoz, 2011;Quintero et al, 2012;Poruban et al, 2014;Bruel et al, 2015;…”

Section: Findings In the Literature Review Of Mismatchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: Findings In the Literature Review Of Mismatchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PoN meets its goals of analyzing the concrete syntax of the modelling languages under evaluation. However, other quality issues appear for 13 Some attempts and efforts have been made such as (Mussbacher et al, 2014), but quality issues continue to be open challenges.…”

Section: The Sufficiency Of Current Quality Evaluation Proposalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The realities of MDE, presented based on a recent survey involving industrial users [30], show a lot of problems involving tool adoption and usability. Additionally, the MDE pipeline is not streamlined and has a lot of "turbulence" [11] because the real world knowledge gets tangled with transformations and code generation, without sufficiently strong support for declaring and leveraging bidirectional transformations.…”

Section: Sociology Of Model Management: Why Model Mappings Are To Be mentioning

confidence: 99%

Open and Original Problems in Software Language Engineering 2015 Workshop Report

Bagge

Zaytsev

2015

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OOPSLE is a workshop co-located with a re-engineering conference and serving as a venue for software language engineers to meet outside the SLE conference to discuss either long-standing problems that remain unresolved for years or decades, or oftavoided problems that everyone is so used to work around that they stop noticing them at all. In 2015, it ran for the third time. The list of topics discussed at the workshop, included transformation in the presence of Boolean grammars, natural language software interfaces, formally supported model management, community-aware language design, domain-specific language design choices and uncertainty-aware development. A report such as this one was requested by the participants, but more condensed and general information can be found on our official webpage at http://oopsle.github.io.

show abstract

“…Despite these efforts, working with user interfaces of modeling tools is still considered as arduous [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ImitGraphs: Towards Faster Usability Tests of Graphical Model Manipulation Techniques

Ghazi¹,

Glinz²

2017

2017 IEEE/ACM 9th International Workshop on Modelling in Software Engineering (MiSE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the increasing use of general purpose graphical models (e.g., UML diagrams) and domain specific graphical models in different stages of software development, software engineers who work with these models spend more time interacting with modeling tools. Thus, the usability of interaction techniques of modeling tools affects the overall productivity of software development. Tool developers and user interface designers rely on the feedback from usability tests to optimize the user interface of tools that provide a graphical editor. Developing a working prototype to test new techniques is costly due to the complexity and variety of graphical models. This results in either tests at the late stages of development when changes are more expensive, or tests with prototypes that only support a subset of the intended graphical models, thus not comprehensive. In order to simplify conducting usability tests, instead of using the intended graphical models in the tests, we propose to use simpler models that require similar interactions when being manipulated. For this purpose, we introduced ImitGraphs, an extended graph with additional properties so that it can be specialized in interacting similarly to an intended graphical model. Then, we designed a method to instruct test participants to create ImitGraphs. Specialized graphs enable us to develop prototypes for usability tests faster and consequently cheaper resulting in more usability tests at early stages of tool development and on a wider range of intended models. Abstract-Due to the increasing use of both general-purpose and domain-specific graphical models (e.g., UML diagrams or graphic DSLs) in different stages of software development, software engineers who work with these models spend more time interacting with modeling tools. Thus, the usability of the interaction techniques employed by modeling tools affects the overall productivity of software development. Tool developers and user interface designers rely on the feedback from usability tests to optimize the user interface of tools that provide a graphical editor. Developing a working prototype to test new techniques is costly due to the complexity and variety of graphical models. This results in either tests at the late stages of development when changes are more expensive, or tests with prototypes that only support a subset of the intended graphical models. In order to simplify conducting usability tests, instead of using the intended graphical models in the tests, we propose to use simpler models that require similar interactions when being manipulated. For this purpose, we introduce graphs with additional properties, which we call ImitGraphs. ImitGraphs can be parametrized such that their interaction behavior is similar to that of an intended graphical model. Further, we introduce a method to instruct test participants to create ImitGraphs and manipulate them. ImitGraphs enable tool builders to develop prototypes for usability tests faster and consequently cheaper, thus resulting in more usabil...

show abstract

The Relevance of Model-Driven Engineering Thirty Years from Now

Cited by 83 publications

References 43 publications

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

Open and Original Problems in Software Language Engineering 2015 Workshop Report

ImitGraphs: Towards Faster Usability Tests of Graphical Model Manipulation Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About