Assessing the quality of metamodels

Abstract

The complexity and diversity of modern software demands a variety of metamodel-based modeling languages for software development. Existing languages change continuously, and new ones are constantly emerging. In this situation, and especially for metamodel-based modeling languages, a quality assurance mechanism for metamodels is needed. This paper presents an approach to assessing the quality of metamodels. A quality model, which systematically characterizes and classifies quality attributes, and an operable measuring mechanism for effectively assessing the quality of metamodels based on the quality model, are presented, using UML as the main example.

Keywords

quality assessment / metamodels / metric

References

[1] OMG. Unified modeling language.

[2] Kobryn C. Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? Communications of the ACM, 2002, 45(1): 107−110

[3] Henderson-Sellers B. UML — the good, the bad or the ugly? Perspectives from a panel of experts. Software System Model, 2005, 4(1): 4−13

[4] Dori D. Why significant UML change is unlikely. Communications of the ACM, 2002, 5(11): 82−85

[5] Haerl D, Rumpe B. Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of “semantics”? IEEE Computer, 2004, 37(10): 64−72

[6] Ma Z Y, Zhao J F, Meng X W, Zhang W J. Research and implementation of jade bird object-oriented software modeling tool. Journal of Software, 2003, 14(1): 97−102

[7] Ma Z Y, Jiang Y B, Li J Y, Dai Y F. Research and implementation of software modeling tool based on UML. ACTA Electronica Sinica, 2002, 12(A): 2049−2051

[8] Ma Z Y, Ma H H, Zhang N B, Lao Z P, Zhu Z G. Development of the software development platform based on UML2.0. Journal of Nanjing University, 2005, 41(z1): 374−381

[9] Atkinson C, Kuhne T. The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language. LNCS 2185, 2001, 19−33

[10] Harel D, Rumpe B. Modeling languages: syntax, semantics and all that stuff Technical Paper Number MCS00-16. 2000

[11] OMG. Object constraint language, 2003

[12] OMG. Common warehouse metamodel V 1.1. 2003

[13] OMG. Systems modeling language V1.2. 2010

[14] Fuentes J M, Quintana V, Llorens J, Génova G, Prieto-Dáz R. Errors in the UML metamodel. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2003, 28(6): 1−13

[15] Kobryn C. UML 3.0 and the future of modeling. Software and Systems Modeling, 2004, 3(1): 4−8

[16] IBM. UML 2.0 profile for software services

[17] OMG. Business process modeling notation, V1.1.

[18] Selic B, Ramackers G, Kobryn C. Evolution, not revolution. Communications of the ACM, 2002, 45(11): 70−72

[19] Weigert T. UML 2.0 RFI response overview. OMG Document ad/00- 01-07, 2000

[20] Douglass B P. UML for systems engineering. Computer Design’s: Electronic Systems Technology and Design, 1998, 37(11): 44−49

[21] Siau K, Cao Q. How complex is the unified modeling language? Advanced Topics in Database Research, 2002, 1: 294−306

[22] ISO/IEC. Information technology-software product quality. ISO-IEC Standard 9126, 2005

[23] OMG. Meta object facility 2.0, 2006

[24] Wand Y, Weber R. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transaction of Software Engineering, 1990, 16(11): 1282−1292

[25] ISO/IEC. Standard for Information technology—software product evaluation—part 1: general overview. ISO/IEC 14598-1, 1999

[26] Bansiya J, Davis C G. A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Transaction of Software Engineering, 2002, 28(1): 4−17

[27] Unhelkar B. Verification and validation for quality of UML 2.0models. A Wiley-Inter Science Publication, 2005

[28] Miller G A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 1956, 63: 81−97

[29] Bendraou R, Jézéquel J M, Gervais M P, Blanc X. A comparison of six uml-based languages for software process modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2010, 36(5): 662−675

[30] Bertolino A, Angelis G D, Sandro A D, Sabetta A. Is my model right? Let me ask the expert. Journal of Systems and Software, 2011, 84(7): 1089−1099

[31] Moody D L. The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2009, 35(6): 756−779

[32] Liu H, Ma Z Y, Shao W Z. Progress of research on metamodeling. Journal of Software, 2008, 19(6): 1317−1327

[33] Lindland O I, Sindre G, Sølvberg A. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 1994,11(2): 42−49

[34] Bansiya J. Evaluating framework architecture structural stability. ACM Computer Survey, 2000, 32(1es): 18−30

[35] Mattsson M, Bosch J. Characterizing stability in evolving frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. 1999, 118−130

[36] Bolloju N, Leung F S K. Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Communication of ACM, 2006, 49(7): 108−112

[37] Hmood A, Keivanloo I, Rilling J. SE-EQUAM-an evolvable quality metamodel. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Computer Software and Applications Workshops, 2012, 334−339

[38] Klint P, LäMmel R, Verhoef C. Toward an engineering discipline for grammarware. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2005, 14(3): 331−380

[39] Shan L J, Zhu H. Unifying the semantics of models and meta-models in the multi-layered UML meta-modelling hierarchy. International Journal of Software and Informatics, 2012, 6(2): 163−200

[40] Sun D B, Wong K. On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, 2005, 317−326

[41] Ma H H, Shao W Z, Zhang L, Ma Z Y, Jiang Y B. Applying OO metrics to assess UML meta-models. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of UML. 2004, 12−26

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2013 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg